STer

That issue was dealt with at just about the very beginning of the talk where he mentioned that the few pairs of jeans available never fit anyone right. But because of that they just had low expectations so they simply coped with it and didn't lose much sleep. I think we've all experienced this time and again where you never knew you were missing something until it became available. I don't remember people being bothered at all at not having a cell phone growing up. Now people are terribly bothered if they can't make a call instantly from anywhere.

But isn't the problem of untreid choices also a part of the problem of having no knowledge? I mean, I don't feel anxious about never having used a fork to write on paper, because I know it would be unsatisfying. So the only way that untried alternatives would cause anxiety that makes sense to me, is, when people can project a better result onto them, which is usually just a lack of knowledge about the actual facts of that option. And btw, no, I haven't seen or read any sutdies on the topic, just that talk you linked, which is why I found it very unsatisfying to not see the studies and methods he used to arrive at those conclusions. I think it's utopian to believe that with 100 salad dressings, for example, it's reasonable to expect people to gain enough knowledge to really be certain they have the best one in the way they could when there were 3 salad dressings at their grocery store. It seems to me just a fact of having a multitude of choices that people simply can't possibly get all the knowledge they'd need in most areas to really be confident. As was pointed out, that's why we end up having to rely on others a lot for guidance. But when we do that, we still will often harbor doubt unless we know a very trusted person on that subject. Well just as a little point in the right direction, here is the page on Satisficing which can lead you to some of Herbert Simon's ideas on it. And here is an article talking about the relative wealth issue, which I have seen brought up in many articles over the years pointing to different studies.

I can identify with that. If I buy a new camera, or book a hotel, or replace my car, I spend ages looking into the available choices. When I make my decision, I feel great anxiety as to whether I've made the right decision. But I'm still going to feel that anxiety, even if my choices are reduced right down to two. That anxiety would only go away if I have only one possibility, and no decision to make. But that situation, having no choice and therefore no chance to improve my situation, would be worse than having to experience choice-anxiety. On the other hand, if there are so many choices that I don't need to go through them one by one, I can just articulate my requirements and see which ones match. I know that the matches are "all good" and can just arbitrarily choose one. That's when I experience no choice-anxiety. Well according to Schwartz having only one choice also causes anxiety. Too few choices is not great either. If there are only a few choices, you can pretty reasonably try them all so there isn't need for quite as much anxiety. But when there are hundreds of choices, it becomes unreasonable to try them all. I think that this is why people do love matrices and things that help them, like the used car site commercial showing the people narrowing down one characteristic at a time. Or meta-sales sites that aggregate data from all the sellers out there to help find you the best deal. These are very helpful tools for maximizers for sure. So part of the answer is certainly providing tools to help manage that anxiety. But I also know that often you can't quite verbalize what the thing is you're looking for or it isn't something that's easy to measure. I wouldn't buy jeans online because even the same pair in the same size can often feel different when you try them on. You really need to interact with certain things to choose that specific item. But Schwartz's point is that back when there were fewer choices, you wouldn't expect such a great fit in the first place. The increase in choices has led to increased expectations.

I saw that section on Wikipedia. But it doesn't refute all the other researchers' work that Schwartz references. Especially, for example, the maximizer/satisficer work. And the other research out there on the principle of people's satisfaction being based on relative comparison to others, not absolute status. Those studies are well known in their own right. I think your second paragraph hits on why this raises so many difficulties. Libertarian/AnCaps seem to be the type of people who enjoy maximal freedom and choice, perhaps because they are satisficers who are able to enjoy those choices despite the massive array of alternative options. That's fine. But I very often see them going to the lengths of painting that desire for maximal freedom as representative of health and that anyone who doesn't enjoy that much freedom has a "slave mentality" that must derive from abuse of some sort. Quite possibly, though, this maximizer/satisficer divide is just a perfectly healthy aspect of human diversity. If this is the case, then it raises questions of how maximizers and satisficers can possibly coexist optimally. It would no longer make sense for satisficers, who are comfortable with maximum choice, as they often do, to paint maximizers who struggle with this and therefore prefer being part of more collective decision-making in more limited structural environments as simply misguided people who haven't yet woken up. Now it would be easy to just say ok, let the satisficers have their world of maximal choice and the maximizers can limit themselves as they need and just live side by side. But in practice it is very difficult for these worlds not to impinge on each other. It's also easy for the satisficers to just say "Oh well, too bad. You have no right to limit my choices just because it makes things more difficult for you." But even if the maximizers say "Ok in theory that's true" you still have the challenge of living in a society with a lot of very stressed and unhappy people, which inevitably has consequences. So it might be interesting to turn this discussion toward the question of how satisficers and maximizers can optimally coexist. I think it's a challenging question.

Infinite options are great because you don't need to select between alternatives. You just articulate what you want, and one of the infinite options will already match that. Humans choose from "infinite" options all the time. If I have nothing planned for a Sunday, I think "What shall I do today?". An infinite number of choices is available to me, yet I have no trouble thinking "It's a nice sunny day, so I'll go to the beach", or "I haven't mown the lawn for a while, so I'll do that today". But what you keep leaving out is that the people referred to as maximizers, when they do this, feel conflicted between multiple choices. You can think of this in terms of the MEcosystem if you want. Different parts want different things. People are not of one mind. And then when the choice is finally made, they have infinite other possibilities to wonder if they would have been better. It really doesn't mean much if you yourself happen to be a satisficer who makes your choice and lives happily with it. The problem is a significant proportion of people are not satisficers.

He obviously made a conscious decision that it was more important to discuss the studies' results along with making the talk entertaining than to give the in-depth numbers here when anyone can read his book for those. It's interesting because I just finished a book by a really successful pitchman where he basically bends over backwards to implore people to do anything they can to avoid getting into the nitty gritty numbers in a short presentation since this loses the audience's attention and they can get those later once they're more interested. So by that logic, Schwartz did the right thing here if his goal is to get more people interested to investigate further. As I keep pointing out, it isn't as much the stress of making the decision itself, though that can be frustrating. It's the existence of so many untried alternatives - far more than it's reasonable to try - which reduces the confidence that you made the best possible choice compared to the confidence people used to have when there were less possible choices. That's the paradox and it comes from the fact that many people's satisfaction is based on relative comparisons, not absolute status. And like I said I've seen other studies on that topic before, as you probably have.

Delegating decision-making is not giving up fredom. When I tell a taxi-driver to take me downtown, I'm not losing any freedom if I let the driver choose the route, because I can withdraw this delegation at any time by asking the driver to take a specific turn. I don't see this as ironic at all. It's one of the many techniques humans use to get the benefit of choices without the choice becoming burdensome. Here are some of those techniques: 1. Delegating some decisions to a person whose knowledge you respect (for example, asking a doctor what he/she would do in the same circumstances). 2. Delegating some decisions to a person who may not have specific knowledge but whose overall wisdom you respect (for example, asking an older family member what they would suggest) 3. Relying on reputation (for example, when buying a new product you could choose a brand name that has served you well in the past with other products) 4. Not sweating the small stuff (don't anguish over decisions that make little difference, save the decision-making for the things that really matter) 5. Making a choice that eliminates the need to make other choices. For example, some people choose a package holiday where flights, hotels and perhaps car rental or excursions are all bundled together. These are all legitimate ways for people to maximise the benefits of choice while reducing the burden. Well the title of Schwartz's talk is "The Paradox of Choice." And this is just another form of paradox. You can frame it as giving away some of your freedom (the choice to outsource your choice) or not (but hey it's still MY choice) depending on how you look at it. So I'm not saying you're wrong here, but I don't think I am either on this point. It's kind of a wash. But that's not really the most important issue here. The really important issue here is that, despite having these options, regardless of which route they take to get the decision made by themselves or through delegating, people apparently are less satisfied in the long run because there are so many more choices that were not chosen and - and this probably happens unconsciously as much as consciously - they can't help wondering whether they could have made a better choice. Of course, the research and evidence need to be relied on to see if this is actually the case. But I see no reason on the surface to doubt this could well be the case. We evolved for an environment with far less choice. So it would make plenty of sense that, in that setting, it was adaptive to always worry if another option might be better because it wasn't that exhausting to test it out. That same mechanism now would simply drive a person to overload because the environment has changed but that mechanism may not have. It's worth noting that nobody is saying this is true of everyone. In fact, Schwartz and others have talked about the difference between maximizers and satisficers. Maximizers are the ones who constantly worry if they've gotten the very best. Satisficers just go wtih good enough and are content wtih that. It seems there are both of these groups in human societies. So we have to be aware of that.

TED talks are very time-limited. His talk is based on a book which goes into a lot more depth and talks about the research on which it's based. Are you saying you can choose choices that are not available? I think we can all agree that there is only so much a human being can handle. Having to know about more than a certain number of options, the expected outcome of more than a certain number of options and one's preferences on more than a certain number of options can become overload. I think that's a truism. The only question is what is the number at which most people become overloaded. Surely you don't believe people can handle all of this regarding infinite options. So there has to be some point at which there are diminished returns.

I still have no idea what you're responding to in Schwartz's talk. Just look at how you reply here. You get caught with the Newton fallacy so now it's time to dismiss this and look at the "false quotes"... Tell me, what chances do I have to successfully show you that my quotes are accurate and not have you similarly dismiss you arguments? and here we go again. How about objectively looking at the logical consistency of the thesis you are presenting? It's you who has no clue about science and clearly no experience in it either. Sorry Joseito. I've made clear what I'm interested in in this thread and what you're offering is not what I'm interested in. I'm only interested in discussing Schwartz's actual work and its merits, not the other stuff around it. That is obviously not your interest. So I'm bowing out of this back and forth with you on this one.

Also remember that early in the talk when he gets into how much choice we have and he asks "Is this good or bad?" his answer is "yes." And he says there are already tons of people talking about the good side of it so he is going to focus on the bad. So don't oversimplify his viewpoint as if he is saying choice is bad and we should just get rid of choice and problem solved. That's not what he said at all. He is saying there is a dilemma here.

Offering a story as a personal example of something you have a lot of research backing up does not make you non-empirical. What makes you non-empirical is if you have no research and you think your one story is a substitute for research. His personal story doesn't even support his thesis. He says he had too many choices, but he came away with the best pair of jeans he ever had. Now let's look at the longer term. The next time he buys jeans, when the salesman asks "straight leg or tapered, stretch or regular" he will know exactly what to say in order to get a great pair of jeans. He doesn't even need to make a decision, just state his preference. And that is one example of how humans gain the benefits of choice without needing to be overwhelmed by it. At my supermarket, there are over 200 types of bread. I am always amazed that such abundance is available to me. When I first moved here, it took a while to find the one I liked, but for the past ten years I've just bought that one every time. So although it took a while at first to discover what I liked from that immense choice, it's no burden in the long run, and I get the benefit of the most wonderful type of bread. I would not be happier under communism where I consider myself lucky to be able to get the standard white loaf. Another example: he says we can give a goldfish the maximum number of choices by smashing its bowl. How ridiculous! An increase in choices for the goldfish would include allowing it to swim in the bowl if it chose to. He is taking away the one choice that the goldfish might actually want (compared to floundering on the carpet after its bowl is smashed). Earlier in the thread I gave the example of the doctor who is supposedly giving the patient maximum choice, but is in fact denying the one choice that the patient wants: to follow the advice of a doctor that they trust. In the TED talk, Swartz is basically just pimping his book. I haven't read the book, so I'm giving Swartz the benefit of the doubt and am not disputing any of his evidence. I'm just saying that he draws the wrong conclusions from it, because he has a mindset that choices are provided to an individual by society, rather than being out there already. 1) You left out the part where, even after people get the better pair, they still feel worse because they never know for sure if it's as good as all the other options out there. And this is what his research showed they feel, not just what he himself was claiming. And I have seen other studies hit on the same concept, as I mentioned before, such as the studies showing that people's satisfaction is mostly based on how they feel they stack up relative to others around them, not in absolute terms. If this is just a fact of human nature, or at least one that is true of a large percentage of people, then it will have an impact on the level of well-being in a society. 2) He made very clear this isn't between having this massive amount of choice and only having one choice like your one Communist system white bread. He was clear that too little choice is also not satisfying. There is a "sweet spot." 3) The irony of your continued attempts to put forth the "choice of not having all that choice" (ie: staying in the fishbowl or choosing to let the doctor decide) is that this is exactly why many people like having authorities make decisions for them. Normally you would be very averse to that as that is the exact kind of dependence that leads people to want to remain in a hierarchy where others can make decisions for them. Yet here Schwartz's case has you turning in the complete opposite direction and using the opportunity to do that as the salvation. If nothing else, Schwartz's work should be very valuable to you because it offers a good example of why many people, even if not yourself, prefer less freedom. And you're playing a sort of game to say "yes but if they chose to give away that freedom that actually represents more freedom." The end result, in any case, is that they outsource the decision-making to avoid the discomfort. And that is very close to the mechanism that sustains hierarchical systems.

I still have no idea what you're responding to in Schwartz's talk. Everything you were so put off by were quotes that you made up that he never even said. Perhaps if you gave actual quotes from his talk that he actually said that you find fault with, there would be more of a discussion. It's hard to take seriously complaints about things he said when you're making up quotes. I don't know what your second paragraph means. But once again it seems that you have immense trouble with the concept that science is about objectively looking at the research and data and not anything else around it, whether other statements the scientist may make in other arenas or the political views of anyone involved in the matter. You are free to consider all of those things, but they make you non-empirical and make your views not that helpful to me in forming an informed opinion of his work itself.

So it's not worth looking at someone's research if you judge them as an unreasonable person? That's pretty close to the definition of ad hominem. I suppose you find Isaac Newton's work on gravity not worth looking at because of the fact that he was interested in alchemy and couldn't put forth a comprehensive theory that explained everything? Newton had quite a number of unreasonable and downright absurd beliefs. How does this make any difference to whether his laws of motion hold up scientifically? It doesn't. But using your approach, you'd never even bother to look at his work. Give me a break. I don't even know what it means to "believe in statistical studies and likelihoods." But it sure has nothing to do with political inclinations. Anyway, like I said, I'm hoping to get input from people who actually believe in looking at someone's work, rather than judging their ideas based on their outside view of the person.

Offering a story as a personal example of something you have a lot of research backing up does not make you non-empirical. What makes you non-empirical is if you have no research and you think your one story is a substitute for research. Schwartz clearly does not think that and nothing he did points to such a mindset. So you are saying a rational person is one who recognizes no point in looking at the research behind something that they judge to be fallacious without looking at the research? Well I can just hear dogmatic people of all stripes in full agreement with you. For example, why should a religious person look at the science behind evolution when they already know that it's false? You are not an empiricist obviously with this viewpoint. But it's my own fault for not realizing until now that when I want empiricists to offer opinions, I need to be explicit about that. What I'd like to hear in this thread are the views of people who actually care about the research and evidence involved in Schwartz's views and can speak to those. I'm not really getting any value out of people who have done no research and not even looked at his research and just off the top of their head claim to disagree.

Correlation does not show causality. What shows causality is further research teasing out actual causes from just correlations. And on what basis are you claiming this was not done? His book references many studies on the matter. You talk as if his information came just from seeing a correlation and making up causality rather than on the basis of further research. Don't you think it would be important for you to look at the research he bases his claims on and see if there are flaws in the research or not? You can't just make up that they are claiming correlation is causation without even looking at why they claim causation is there. It's funny that you used quotes to say something that is demonstrably not a quote. Schwartz never said the thing that you just "quoted." You made that up. Furthermore, you claim he is drawing biased conclusions from empirical data. Please explain how. Can you show me which study he has taken out of context, misquoted or anything else? Another completely false "quote." He never said anything about that we SHOULD blame anyone. He is simply reporting that people experience this sense of blame when studies are done on the matter. Total tangent off the subject for multiple reasons, both including that my view on that and this are separate and that, more importantly, my view on any of this is irrelevant. This isn't about me and my view. It's about Schwartz's research and whether it is sound or not, period. I'm not even asking for people to just make up opinions. I'm asking for people familiar with his research and work to give reviews of the quality of the work itself. What benefit is there in someone doing a bunch of research and then people just saying "I disagree" based on nothing but their opinion? If that is how things work, then science as a whole becomes useless. More false and made up "quotes." Schwartz is simply reporting what we find. It has little to do with "blaming" anyone. He is simply pointing out that when humans are in certain situations, we find that they become less happy. I don't recall him saying to "blame" anyone. This would probably be a lot more useful if, when quoting him, you actually quoted him and responded to things he actually said. It sounds like you're responding to things you made up in your own head and then pretend he said. It's clear to me you didn't look at his work at all before typing this. It's a bunch of responses to things he didn't say and irrelevant questions without a single comment about any of the studies backing what he said. I ask about these things here because supposedly this place is full of empiricists. But it's the non-empiricists who end up responding. In the future I'll make clear when I'm looking for opinions from empiricists and not assume that is what I'll get just because I'm supposedly on a forum dedicated to it.

Yes, but you disagree without actually doing any research to back it up. So I'm going with the guy who did research. If you are an empiricist, which I thought people on FDR are, you would go with the research too, or at least hold yourself responsible to refute that research before just blindly disagreeing. I've not made assertions about the amount of study you've put into this subject and I would appreciate it if you would afford me the same courtesy. Also, you're having a conversation with me, not the FDR community. If you want to snipe me for not being an empiricist, while not knowing my level of education, feel free. But I don't represent this community. I represent myself. /emoticons/emotion-1.gif You have not even referred to his research in any of what you've said. If you disagree, then explain why you disagree by pointing out where his work is flawed. Disagreeing with a scientific finding on the basis only of your own personal experience is not empirical. Your level of education is not relevant at all. Being an empiricist is a question of values, namely do you value evidence studied through experimentation as opposed to just speculation. Are you an empiricist or not? If not, then state that openly and we can save a lot of wasted discussion. If so, then please show the empirical evidence for why Schwartz is wrong (ie: your aunt is not sufficient refutation).

Yes, but you disagree without actually doing any research to back it up. So I'm going with the guy who did research. If you are an empiricist, which I thought people on FDR are, you would go with the research too, or at least hold yourself responsible to refute that research before just blindly disagreeing.

I don't have any doubt that she would be happier with fewer tax laws to deal with. But that's not what I said. I said that having more tax laws to deal with doesn't cause her to become unhappy. I'm happy when I come home and my wife has made me my favorite dish, but I'm not unhappy when I come home and she asks me what I want for supper. This is a silly attempt to make happy/unhappy an all-or-nothing. Happiness is on a spectrum. And Schwartz has found that, on balance, we're happier with a certain moderate level of choice and less happy with either too much or too little choice. The situation with your aunt seems to bear that out quite well. With less of these decisions to make, but a moderate amount, she'd be happier. Not thrilled vs. horribly depressed. Just happier

There is indeed a problem that needs to be dealt with but it certainly isn't a problem of too many choices. Any well adjusted, rational person can be happier with thirty choices and with three. If there is as strong a correlation between expanding choices and unhappiness as he asserts, perhaps we should blame the neuroses inflicted on children through inconsistent child rearing practices. What I see this guy doing is what so many other intellectuals do.... looking for the cause of the illness only in the symptoms. Or perhaps more apropos, looking for the cause of the neuroses only in the triggers. I find it strange how you're willing to just throw out totally baseless speculations such as "only neurotic people who are badly raised will be happier with the 3 choices than the 30." How do you know? Did you do research on this? It's a worthwhile hypothesis and one that might be worth asking Schwartz about. But for all we know he accounted for this. But regardless it's baseless to just claim that's the reason. This response is ironic because what I see is you projecting your own "cause" onto what he said, when I don't see it in what he said at all. It's a perfectly legitimate hypothesis to consider that we simply did not evolve to deal with this level of choice. It's unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years of human history and there is no reason to assume we'd deal well with it or that a healthy person would find it pleasant being put in so many difficult decision-making positions that never used to exist. In fact, I could make a case for the exact opposite. The people who most enjoy having this incredible amount of choice are unhealthy people who need constant distraction to keep from facing their wounds. That speculation is no more founded than the one you made. The point is there are logical reasons you could believe either one. Ultimately, it takes research to tell us which plausible-sounding statement is actually correct. I didn't claim my assertion to be an absolute truth, although I do understand how it came accross as such. My point is that more choices isn't a cause of anything. Not in my example, not in yours and not in his. It's a trigger. As an example, I have an aunt who is a CPA. She makes very complicated decisions out of myriad different decisions that could be made for her clients, every day. And she does it with confidence. But when she goes to buy a new washing machine... she could well be one of his results. She has the logical thinking abilities to process thousands of tax laws, tax avoidance mechanisms, tax avoidance strategies, et al... so to assert that more choices causes her nurosis is absurd. She deals with new tax laws every year with no problem. It has nothing to do with the number of choices. Could it be the nature of the choices? Perhaps so but that's not what this guy claims. And how do you know your aunt wouldn't be happier if there were less of these difficult decisions?

There is indeed a problem that needs to be dealt with but it certainly isn't a problem of too many choices. Any well adjusted, rational person can be happier with thirty choices and with three. If there is as strong a correlation between expanding choices and unhappiness as he asserts, perhaps we should blame the neuroses inflicted on children through inconsistent child rearing practices. What I see this guy doing is what so many other intellectuals do.... looking for the cause of the illness only in the symptoms. Or perhaps more apropos, looking for the cause of the neuroses only in the triggers. I find it strange how you're willing to just throw out totally baseless speculations such as "only neurotic people who are badly raised will be happier with the 3 choices than the 30." How do you know? Did you do research on this? It's a worthwhile hypothesis and one that might be worth asking Schwartz about. But for all we know he accounted for this. But regardless it's baseless to just claim that's the reason. This response is ironic because what I see is you projecting your own "cause" onto what he said, when I don't see it in what he said at all. It's a perfectly legitimate hypothesis to consider that we simply did not evolve to deal with this level of choice. It's unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years of human history and there is no reason to assume we'd deal well with it or that a healthy person would find it pleasant being put in so many difficult decision-making positions that never used to exist. In fact, I could make a case for the exact opposite. The people who most enjoy having this incredible amount of choice are unhealthy people who need constant distraction to keep from facing their wounds. That speculation is no more founded than the one you made. The point is there are logical reasons you could believe either one. Ultimately, it takes research to tell us which plausible-sounding statement is actually correct.

There is debate though over whether psychopathy, especially, is exactly a "mental illness" at all vs. simply a co-evolved evolutionary strategy. Why do you assume that any sinister personality is a false self? Can't there be some whose sinister personality is their true self and it is when they are keeping that in check and covering it up that they are in their false self? I guess it goes back to the old debate over whether everyone is inherently "good" at their core. I think we have enough evidence to suggest that that is not the case.

Predictably Irrational is the book by Dan Ariely who also did some interesting TED talks. I guess maybe someone created a playlist and called it that and put this video on the list too. I'm confused by what you're saying here. What he is describing is not his own reasoning, but the results found in his research. And I don't find it hard to believe at all. In fact, I relate to the findings greatly. Also he is talking about the way people themselves experience these choices, not the reality, per se. When he says that previously the world was to blame, he means that that is how people experience it. If you only have one choice and it's bad, then it's easy to place the responsibility elsewhere. That's just how his research found that people think. But again, beyond this being (at least I'm pretty sure) empirical data, not just his own reasoning, I don't see why this is hard to believe at all. I have felt this way myself many many times. It also meshes very well with other studies of well-being and satisfaction, such as those that show that even if you have more money, people don't feel better if those around you have even more. We tend to judge things relatively. So if you only have one or two choices, you don't have to look around and see so many options you missed out on. With more choices, you do see all the options you missed. I don't see why you'd dismiss the logic so easily even if it didn't have more data to back it up (though of course it would be worth calling for more research to verify the hypothesis in that case).

The way you phrase that, it seems to imply that one party is "providing" choices to the other party, and has the ability to "increase" or "decrease" the number of choices. That doesn't resemble freedom to me. If you say to someone "you may have a coffee or a soda" you force that person to make a choice. If you allow them to have an extra choice ("coffee or a soda or a glass of milk") you don't make them more free. But if you simply allow the person to be free (by removing restrictions, as bbeljefe said), what happens is this: the person thinks "I'd like a beer", and they get themselves a beer. It doesn't even occur to them that they had to make a choice, and they don't suffer the stress of having been offered "too many" choices. If you watch the video, he isn't just talking about some individual walking up and offering you a multiple choice, necessarily. He goes into the proliferation of products on the market, for example, and the huge number of combinations people can mix and match. Even with your beer example, ok they decide they want a beer and they go to the store. But whereas in the past there would be maybe 3 beer choices, now there are 20, including special types of beers, special types of cans, etc. And this is what ultimately ends up decreasing their satisfaction according to him.

Subtracting restrictions, by definition, leads to increased choice. But Schwartz is saying that at a certain point these increased choices become detrimental to our sense of well-being. So the same problem remains to be dealt with.

If maximizing choice isn't how you maximize freedom, then how do you maximize freedom? Your examples only show that increased choice in one area doesn't automatically increase choice in other areas. But in the area where choices were increased, wouldn't we say freedom was increased and that the way to increase freedom overall would be to do the same in the other areas, as well? And yet he seems to be explaining that doing that would not, in fact, lead to more satisfaction. So how do you increase freedom if not by increasing choices, leading to the problems he points out here?