The paradox of choice | Barry Schwartz | TED

Summary

このスクリプトでは、選択肢の多さとそれが人々の幸福に与える影響について語られています。西洋の工業社会には、市民の福利を最大化するために個々の自由を増やすことができるという公式教条がありますが、その自由は選択肢の多さを通じて実現されます。しかし、実際には選択肢が多すぎると、人々は選択をすることが難しくなり、決定に逡巡してしまう傾向にあります。また、選択肢が多ければ多いほど、人々は結果に満足感を感じにくくなり、選択肢を増やすることで期待値が高まり、その結果として不満が増すことが示されています。さらに、選択肢を増やすことにより、人々は自分の選択が不満な結果につながった場合、自分自身に責任を問い合わせることになり、それがうつ病や自己責任を引き起こす原因となり得ます。講演者は、選択肢が多すぎると、人々はより良い結果を得ても満足感が得られず、逆に不幸を感じることを指摘しています。

Takeaways

• 📈 西方工業社会普遍信奉的“官方教条”认为，最大化个人自由等同于最大化公民福利。
• 🛒 超市和电子产品商店提供的选择数量激增，如175种沙拉酱和650万种不同的立体声系统组合。
• 📱 现代通讯工具，特别是手机，提供了几乎无限多的选择，从基本通话到集成了MP3播放器和鼻毛修剪器的多功能设备。
• 🤔 选择的增加并没有带来预期的满足感，反而导致了决策困难，人们在面对众多选择时感到困惑和压力。
• 😣 过多的选择导致人们即使做出选择后也感到不满意，因为容易后悔并想象可能做出的更好选择。
• 💸 选择的增加带来了机会成本的意识，人们会考虑放弃的选择中吸引人的特质，从而减少了对所做选择的满意度。
• 👖 即使是在提升产品质量方面，如牛仔裤的多种款式，选择的增加也提高了人们的期望值，导致即使产品很好，也难以达到预期，产生失望。
• 📉 选择的增加与临床抑郁症的增加有关，因为当人们的期望未能满足时，他们倾向于自责，感到失败。
• 🎯 适度的期望是幸福的关键，因为过高的期望会导致即使面对良好结果时也感到不满足。
• 👉 选择的增加是现代西方社会特有的问题，而非选择不足的问题，后者是世界其他地区面临的挑战。
• 💔 个人责任感的增强和高标准可能导致人们在做出决策后，即使结果是好的，也感到失望，因为他们认为自己本可以做得更好。

Q & A

「公式教条」とは何を指しているのですか？

「公式教条」とは、西洋の工業社会において一般に受け入れられている信念を指しています。個人の自由を最大化することで、市民の福祉を最大化できるとされており、自由そのものが人間にとって大切で、また自由があることで人々が自分自身の福祉を最大化できるとされています。

選択肢の多さはなぜ人々をパリalysisに陥れる可能性があるのですか？

選択肢が多すぎると、人々はどの選択肢を選ぶべきかを決めることが非常に困難になります。その結果、決定を先延ばしにしてしまい、最終的には何も選択できなくなってしまう、つまり「パリalysis」と呼ばれる状態になる可能性があります。

選択肢が多ければ多いほど、なぜ人々は選択の結果に満足感を感じにくくなるのですか？

選択肢が多ければ多いほど、人々はその中から最適なものを選ぶことができると思えますが、実際には逆に選択の結果に対する満足感が低下します。なぜなら、選択肢が多ければ、選択肢を選ぶ際に他に選べた可能性があると感じ、その選択肢が最適でなかったと感じるためです。

「患者の自己決定権」とは何ですか？

「患者の自己決定権」とは、患者自身が自分の治療方針について決定権を持つことを指します。これは、医師が患者に選択肢を提示し、患者が自分自身で決定するという医療スタイルを意味しています。

マーケティングが私たちの生活にどのような影響を与える可能性がありますか？

マーケティングは、私たちが選択する可能性がある商品やサービスを宣伝することで、私たちの選択肢を広げることができます。しかし、その結果として、私たちは自分自身で決定を下すことが求められるため、選択肢が多ければ多いほど、選択に苦慮する必要があり、ストレスを感じる可能性があります。

現代の社会において、私たちはなぜアイデンティティを選択しなければならないのですか？

現代の社会では、アイデンティティは選択の範疇になりました。私たちは生まれながらにアイデンティティを継承するのではなく、自分自身でアイデンティティを発明し、必要に応じて再発明することができるようになりました。

結婚や家庭において、現代の人々はどのような選択肢を抱いているのですか？

現代の人々は、結婚や家庭において多くの選択肢を抱えています。結婚するかどうか、いつ結婚するか、子供を先に産むかキャリアを先に築くかなど、様々な選択肢を検討し、自分自身で決定する必要があります。

仕事において、現代のテクノロジーは私たちにどのような選択肢を提供しているのですか？

現代のテクノロジーは、私たちが世界中のどこからでも、いつでも働き続けることができるようにしています。しかし、その結果として、私たちは常に働くべきか、それともプライベートの時間を過ごすべきかを判断しなければならず、選択肢が多ければ多いほど、選択が難しくなる傾向があります。

選択肢が多ければ多いほど、なぜ人々はその選択肢に対する期待が高まってしまうのですか？

選択肢が多ければ多いほど、人々はその中から最高の選択肢を選ぶことができると期待しやすくなります。しかし、実際には最適な選択肢が見つからない場合があり、その結果として、人々は期待していたものと異なる結果に失望しやすくなります。

幸せの秘訣は何ですか？

話者の見解では、幸せの秘訣は期待値を低く保つことにあるとされています。選択肢が多ければ多いほど、人々はその選択肢に対する期待が高まり、その結果として、実際に手に入ったものと比較して失望を覚えやすくなります。

私たちが選択肢を増やし続けることの悪影響とは何ですか？

選択肢を増やし続けることによって、人々は選択肢に対する期待が高まり、結果として選択肢に対する満足感が低下します。また、選択肢が多ければ多いほど、人々はパリalysisに陥りやすくなり、選択肢を増やすことによって実際には人々を不幸にすることが示唆されています。

Outlines

00:00

📚 西方社会の公式教条と選択の自由

第1段落では、西方工業社会の公式教条について語り、それが市民の福利を最大化するために個々の自由を最大化することが肝要であるとされています。自由は人として大切で、選択肢を増やすことにより自由を増やし、福利も増やせるとされています。スーパーマーケットでの170種類のサラダドレッシングや、コンシューマelectronics店で6,500,000通りのステレオシステムの組み合わせなど、現代の進歩が私たちに選択肢を提供している例が挙げられます。

05:02

🤔 選択肢の増大とそれに伴う問題

第2段落では、選択肢が増加すると、人々は選択に陥ることがあるという問題が説明されています。選択肢が多すぎると、人々は選択を推迟してしまう傾向にあり、それが結果的に投資や健康保険への参加率を下げる要因になるとも述べています。また、選択肢が多ければ多いほど、人々はその選択が不満な結果を生むと、自分に責任があると感じることがあり、それが精神的な問題に結びつく可能性があると警告しています。

10:03

👖 選択肢の多さと幸福の関係

第3段落では、選択肢が多ければ多いほど、人々はその選択の結果に満足感を感じにくくなるという議論がされています。選択肢が多ければ、選択した結果が不満な場合、他の選択肢を想像し、その選択を後悔する可能性が高くなります。また、選択肢が多いほど、人々はその選択肢がどれだけ良いかの期待値が高くなるため、実際に手に入れたものと比較して失望を覚えやすくなります。

15:04

😊 幸福の秘訣は期待値の低さ

第4段落では、幸福の秘訣は期待値を低く保つことにあると語られています。選択肢が少なくとも存在するのに対して、選択肢が無制限に存在すると、人々は選択に陥り、その結果として満足感が低下する傾向があります。また、選択肢が多ければ多いほど、人々は自分自身に対して失望を持ち、それが精神的な問題につながることがあると述べています。最後に、選択肢の多さによる問題は、現代の豊かな西側社会に特有の問題であり、選択肢を減らすことで、より良い社会を実現できると結論づけています。

Keywords

💡選択の自由

選択の自由とは、個人が自分自身の意志に基づいて選択できる状態を指します。ビデオでは、選択の自由が個人の福利を最大化する手段であるとされており、それが人間にとって大切な価値であると述べています。しかし、選択肢が多すぎると、人々は選択をするのが難しくなり、選択肢を増やすことで福利が向上するとは限らないという問題が指摘されています。

💡選択の多さ

選択の多さは、人々が何から選択するかについて多くのオプションを提供することを意味します。ビデオでは、スーパーマーケットでのサラダドレッシングの選択肢や、携帯電話の機能の多様性など、現代の進歩がもたらした選択肢の多さについて触れています。ただし、選択肢が多すぎると、人々が選択を決定するのが困難になり、選択肢を増やすことによって満足度が下がることがあると警告しています。

💡患者の自己決定権

患者の自己決定権は、患者自身が医療に関する決定を下す権利を意味します。ビデオでは、アメリカの医療現場で医師が患者に選択肢を提示し、患者自身が決定を求められるようになった現状について話されています。これは、選択肢を増やすことで責任と負担が患者に移ることを意味し、時には患者が最も適した選択をすることができないと感じることがあると指摘しています。

💡自己責任

自己責任とは、個人が自分自身の行動や選択によって生じる結果に対して責任を持つことを指します。ビデオでは、選択肢が多ければ多いほど、人々は自分自身の選択に対して責任を感じることが強くなると述べています。これは、人々が失望したときに自己責任を感じることを意味し、それがうつ病や自己責任感につながる可能性があると警告しています。

💡期待の水準

期待の水準とは、個人が何かに対して期待する品質や標準を意味します。ビデオでは、選択肢が多ければ多いほど、人々はその選択肢がどれだけ良いかという期待が高まると指摘しています。これは、実際に手に入ったものが期待に応えなければ、その選択が失望に感じられる原因になると述べています。

💡机会費用

机会費用とは、選択を下す際に、他の選択肢を拒否することで失う可能性がある価値を意味します。ビデオでは、選択肢が多ければ多いほど、人々は選択肢を比較し、選択肢を拒否することで失ったと感じる価値が大きくなると述べています。これは、選択の結果に対する満足度を下げる要因となり得ると警告しています。

💡福利

福利とは、個人の幸福や満足感を意味します。ビデオでは、選択の自由と選択肢の多さが福利を最大化するとされているが、実際には選択肢が多すぎると、福利が下がることがあると指摘しています。これは、選択肢が多ければ選択に時間がかかり、結果として福利が損なわれる可能性があることを意味します。

💡自己決定

自己決定とは、個人が自分自身の意志に基づいて行動を決定することを意味します。ビデオでは、自己決定が現代社会で大切な価値であり、しかし、選択肢が多すぎると自己決定が困難になることが指摘されています。これは、選択肢を増やすことで人々が自己決定を行うのが難しくなる可能性があることを意味します。

💡選択の麻痹

選択の麻痹とは、選択肢が多すぎるために人々が選択を決定するのが困難になり、結局何も選択しなくなる状態を意味します。ビデオでは、選択の自由が幸福をもたらすという公式に疑問を投げかけ、実際には選択肢が多すぎると人々が選択を決定するのが困難になり、福利が下がることがあると警告しています。

💡期待と現実

期待と現実とは、人々が何かに対して持つ期待と、実際に手に入ったものとの間に生じるギャップを意味します。ビデオでは、選択肢が多ければ多いほど、人々はその選択肢に対する期待が高まり、実際に手に入ったものが期待に満たない場合、失望を感じることがあり得ると述べています。

💡幸福の秘訣

幸福の秘訣とは、人々が幸せを感じるために必要な要素や方法を意味します。ビデオでは、選択肢を増やすことで期待が高まり、結果として満足度が下がることがあると指摘しています。また、幸福の秘訣は期待を低く保つことが重要であると述べ、実際には選択肢を減らすことで幸福を感じることが容易になる可能性があると提案しています。

Highlights

The 'official dogma' of Western societies is that maximizing individual freedom maximizes welfare.

Freedom is seen as inherently good and essential to human nature.

Maximizing choice is equated with maximizing freedom and welfare.

Modern progress has led to an overwhelming number of choices in everyday life, from salad dressings to stereo systems.

The variety of choices in cell phones exemplifies the 'future' of consumer options.

The concept of 'patient autonomy' in healthcare places decision-making burdens on patients, not doctors.

Direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs aims to influence patients to request specific medications from doctors.

Identity and self-reinvention have become matters of choice, rather than inheritance.

Modern life presents choices regarding marriage, family, and career paths that previous generations did not face.

Technology enables constant work and blurring the lines between work and personal life.

The abundance of choice can lead to decision paralysis rather than liberation.

Increased choice can result in less satisfaction due to the ease of imagining better alternatives.

The concept of 'opportunity costs' affects satisfaction levels with chosen options.

Escalation of expectations due to increased options can lead to disappointment even with good results.

The secret to happiness may be having low expectations to allow for pleasant surprises.

The abundance of choices in affluent societies may be detrimental to mental health, leading to self-blame and depression.

There is a point of diminishing returns where more choice does not improve welfare, and we may have surpassed it.

Income redistribution could improve the welfare of everyone by addressing the issue of excessive choice in affluent societies.

The metaphor of the 'fishbowl' suggests that having boundaries can be beneficial and that unlimited possibilities can lead to paralysis and dissatisfaction.

Transcripts

I'm going to talk to you about some stuff that's in this book of mine

that I hope will resonate with other things you've already heard,

and I'll try to make some connections myself,

in case you miss them.

But I want to start with what I call the "official dogma."

The official dogma of what?

The official dogma of all Western industrial societies.

And the official dogma runs like this:

if we are interested in maximizing the welfare of our citizens,

the way to do that is to maximize individual freedom.

The reason for this is both that freedom is, in and of itself, good,

valuable, worthwhile, essential to being human,

and because if people have freedom,

then each of us can act on our own

to do the things that will maximize our welfare,

and no one has to decide on our behalf.

The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice.

The more choice people have, the more freedom they have,

and the more freedom they have,

the more welfare they have.

This, I think, is so deeply embedded in the water supply

that it wouldn't occur to anyone to question it.

And it's also deeply embedded in our lives.

I'll give you some examples

of what modern progress has made possible for us.

This is my supermarket.

Not such a big one.

I want to say just a word about salad dressing.

A hundred seventy-five salad dressings in my supermarket,

if you don't count the 10 extra-virgin olive oils

and 12 balsamic vinegars you could buy

to make a very large number of your own salad dressings,

in the off-chance that none of the 175 the store has on offer suit you.

So this is what the supermarket is like.

And then you go to the consumer electronics store

to set up a stereo system --

speakers, CD player, tape player, tuner, amplifier --

and in this one single consumer electronics store,

there are that many stereo systems.

We can construct six and a half million different stereo systems

out of the components that are on offer in one store.

You've got to admit that's a lot of choice.

In other domains -- the world of communications.

There was a time, when I was a boy,

when you could get any kind of telephone service you wanted,

as long as it came from Ma Bell.

You rented your phone, you didn't buy it.

One consequence of that, by the way, is that the phone never broke.

And those days are gone.

We now have an almost unlimited variety of phones,

especially in the world of cell phones.

These are cell phones of the future.

My favorite is the middle one --

the MP3 player, nose hair trimmer, and crème brûlée torch.

And if --

(Laughter)

if by some chance you haven't seen that in your store yet,

you can rest assured that one day soon, you will.

And what this does is it leads people to walk into their stores,

asking this question.

And do you know what the answer to this question now is?

The answer is "no."

It is not possible to buy a cell phone that doesn't do too much.

So, in other aspects of life that are much more significant than buying things,

the same explosion of choice is true.

Health care.

It is no longer the case in the United States

that you go to the doctor, and the doctor tells you what to do.

Instead, you go to the doctor,

and the doctor tells you, "Well, we could do A, or we could do B.

A has these benefits and these risks.

B has these benefits and these risks.

What do you want to do?"

And you say, "Doc, what should I do?"

And the doc says, "A has these benefits and risks,

and B has these benefits and risks.

What do you want to do?"

And you say, "If you were me, Doc, what would you do?"

And the doc says, "But I'm not you."

And the result is -- we call it "patient autonomy,"

which makes it sound like a good thing,

but what it really is is a shifting of the burden and the responsibility

for decision-making

from somebody who knows something -- namely, the doctor --

to somebody who knows nothing and is almost certainly sick

and thus, not in the best shape to be making decisions --

namely, the patient.

There's enormous marketing of prescription drugs

to people like you and me,

which, if you think about it, makes no sense at all,

since we can't buy them.

Why do they market to us if we can't buy them?

The answer is that they expect us to call our doctors the next morning

and ask for our prescriptions to be changed.

Something as dramatic as our identity

has now become a matter of choice,

as this slide is meant to indicate.

We don't inherit an identity; we get to invent it.

And we get to reinvent ourselves as often as we like.

And that means that every day, when you wake up in the morning,

you have to decide what kind of person you want to be.

With respect to marriage and family:

there was a time when the default assumption that almost everyone had

is that you got married as soon as you could,

and then you started having kids as soon as you could.

The only real choice was who,

not when, and not what you did after.

Nowadays, everything is very much up for grabs.

I teach wonderfully intelligent students,

and I assign 20 percent less work than I used to.

And it's not because they're less smart,

and it's not because they're less diligent.

It's because they are preoccupied, asking themselves,

"Should I get married or not? Should I get married now?

Should I get married later?

Should I have kids first or a career first?"

All of these are consuming questions.

And they're going to answer these questions,

whether or not it means not doing all the work I assign

and not getting a good grade in my courses.

And indeed they should.

These are important questions to answer.

Work.

We are blessed, as Carl was pointing out,

with the technology that enables us to work every minute of every day

from any place on the planet --

except the Randolph Hotel.

(Laughter)

(Applause)

There is one corner, by the way,

that I'm not going to tell anybody about, where the WiFi actually works.

I'm not telling you about it, because I want to use it.

So what this means,

this incredible freedom of choice we have with respect to work,

is that we have to make a decision,

again and again and again,

about whether we should or shouldn't be working.

We can go to watch our kid play soccer,

and we have our cell phone on one hip and our Blackberry on our other hip,

and our laptop, presumably, on our laps.

And even if they're all shut off,

every minute that we're watching our kid mutilate a soccer game,

we are also asking ourselves,

"Should I answer this cell phone call?

Should I respond to this email? Should I draft this letter?"

And even if the answer to the question is "no,"

it's certainly going to make the experience of your kid's soccer game

very different than it would've been.

So everywhere we look,

big things and small things, material things and lifestyle things,

life is a matter of choice.

And the world we used to live in looked like this.

[Well, actually, they are written in stone.]

That is to say, there were some choices,

but not everything was a matter of choice.

The world we now live in looks like this.

[The Ten Commandments Do-It-Yourself Kit]

And the question is: Is this good news or bad news?

And the answer is "yes."

(Laughter)

We all know what's good about it,

so I'm going to talk about what's bad about it.

All of this choice has two effects,

two negative effects on people.

One effect, paradoxically,

is that it produces paralysis rather than liberation.

With so many options to choose from,

people find it very difficult to choose at all.

I'll give you one very dramatic example of this,

a study that was done of investments in voluntary retirement plans.

A colleague of mine got access to investment records from Vanguard,

the gigantic mutual fund company,

of about a million employees and about 2,000 different workplaces.

What she found is that for every 10 mutual funds the employer offered,

rate of participation went down two percent.

You offer 50 funds -- 10 percent fewer employees participate

than if you only offer five.

Why?

Because with 50 funds to choose from,

it's so damn hard to decide which fund to choose,

that you'll just put it off till tomorrow,

and then tomorrow

and then tomorrow and tomorrow,

and, of course, tomorrow never comes.

Understand that not only does this mean

that people are going to have to eat dog food when they retire

because they don't have enough money put away,

it also means that making the decision is so hard

that they pass up significant matching money from the employer.

By not participating, they are passing up as much as 5,000 dollars a year

from the employer,

who would happily match their contribution.

So paralysis is a consequence of having too many choices.

And I think it makes the world look like this.

[And lastly, for all eternity, French, bleu cheese or ranch?]

(Laughter)

You really want to get the decision right if it's for all eternity, right?

You don't want to pick the wrong mutual fund or wrong salad dressing.

So that's one effect.

The second effect is that, even if we manage to overcome the paralysis

and make a choice,

we end up less satisfied with the result of the choice

than we would be if we had fewer options to choose from.

And there are several reasons for this.

One of them is, with a lot of different salad dressings to choose from,

if you buy one and it's not perfect -- and what salad dressing is? --

it's easy to imagine that you could've made a different choice

that would've been better.

And what happens is,

this imagined alternative induces you to regret the decision you made,

and this regret subtracts from the satisfaction you get

out of the decision you made,

even if it was a good decision.

The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all

that is disappointing about the option that you chose.

Second, what economists call "opportunity costs."

Dan Gilbert made a big point this morning

of talking about how much the way in which we value things

depends on what we compare them to.

Well, when there are lots of alternatives to consider,

it's easy to imagine the attractive features of alternatives that you reject

that make you less satisfied with the alternative that you've chosen.

Here's an example.

[I can't stop thinking about those other available parking spaces on W 85th Street]

If you're not a New Yorker, I apologize.

Here's what you're supposed to be thinking.

Here's this couple on the Hamptons. Very expensive real estate.

Gorgeous beach. Beautiful day. They have it all to themselves.

What could be better?

"Damn it," this guy is thinking,

"It's August. Everybody in my Manhattan neighborhood is away.

I could be parking right in front of my building."

And he spends two weeks nagged by the idea

that he is missing the opportunity, day after day,

to have a great parking space.

(Laughter)

Opportunity costs subtract from the satisfaction

that we get out of what we choose,

even when what we choose is terrific.

And the more options there are to consider,

the more attractive features of these options

are going to be reflected by us as opportunity costs.

Here's another example.

(Laughter)

Now, this cartoon makes a lot of points.

It makes points about living in the moment as well,

and probably about doing things slowly.

But one point it makes is that whenever you're choosing one thing,

you're choosing not to do other things,

and those other things may have lots of attractive features,

and it's going to make what you're doing

less attractive.

Third: escalation of expectations.

This hit me when I went to replace my jeans.

I wear jeans almost all the time.

There was a time when jeans came in one flavor,

and you bought them, and they fit like crap.

They were incredibly uncomfortable,

and if you wore them long enough and washed them enough times,

they started to feel OK.

I went to replace my jeans after years of wearing these old ones.

I said, "I want a pair of jeans. Here's my size."

And the shopkeeper said,

"Do you want slim fit, easy fit, relaxed fit?

You want button fly or zipper fly? You want stonewashed or acid-washed?

Do you want them distressed?

Do you want boot cut, tapered?" Blah, blah, blah on and on he went.

My jaw dropped.

And after I recovered, I said,

"I want the kind that used to be the only kind."

(Laughter)

He had no idea what that was.

(Laughter)

So I spent an hour trying on all these damn jeans,

and I walked out of the store -- truth --

with the best-fitting jeans I had ever had.

I did better.

All this choice made it possible for me to do better.

But --

I felt worse.

Why? I wrote a whole book to try to explain this to myself.

The reason is --

(Laughter)

The reason I felt worse is that with all of these options available,

my expectations about how good a pair of jeans should be went up.

I had very low, no particular expectations when they only came in one flavor.

When they came in 100 flavors, damn it, one of them should've been perfect.

And what I got was good, but it wasn't perfect.

And so I compared what I got to what I expected,

and what I got was disappointing in comparison to what I expected.

Adding options to people's lives

can't help but increase the expectations people have

about how good those options will be.

And what that's going to produce is less satisfaction with results,

even when they're good results.

[It all looks so great. I can't wait to be disappointed.]

Nobody in the world of marketing knows this.

Because if they did, you wouldn't all know what this was about.

The truth is more like this.

[Everything was better back when everything was worse.]

The reason that everything was better back when everything was worse

is that when everything was worse,

it was actually possible for people

to have experiences that were a pleasant surprise.

Nowadays, the world we live in -- we affluent, industrialized citizens,

with perfection the expectation --

the best you can ever hope for

is that stuff is as good as you expect it to be.

You will never be pleasantly surprised,

because your expectations, my expectations,

have gone through the roof.

The secret to happiness -- this is what you all came for --

the secret to happiness is:

low expectations.

(Laughter)

[You'll do]

(Applause)

(Laughter)

I want to say --

just a little autobiographical moment --

that I actually am married to a wife,

and she's really quite wonderful.

I couldn't have done better.

I didn't settle.

But settling isn't always such a bad thing.

Finally,

one consequence of buying a bad-fitting pair of jeans

when there is only one kind to buy

is that when you are dissatisfied and you ask why, who's responsible,

the answer is clear: the world is responsible.

What could you do?

When there are hundreds of different styles of jeans available

and you buy one that is disappointing

and you ask why, who's responsible,

it is equally clear that the answer to the question is "you."

You could have done better.

With a hundred different kinds of jeans on display,

there is no excuse for failure.

And so when people make decisions,

and even though the results of the decisions are good,

they feel disappointed about them;

they blame themselves.

Clinical depression has exploded in the industrial world

in the last generation.

I believe a significant -- not the only, but a significant -- contributor

to this explosion of depression and also suicide,

is that people have experiences that are disappointing

because their standards are so high,

and then when they have to explain these experiences to themselves,

they think they're at fault.

So the net result is that we do better in general, objectively,

and we feel worse.

So let me remind you:

this is the official dogma, the one that we all take to be true,

and it's all false.

It is not true.

There's no question that some choice is better than none.

But it doesn't follow from that

that more choice is better than some choice.

There's some magical amount. I don't know what it is.

I'm pretty confident that we have long since passed the point

where options improve our welfare.

Now, as a policy matter -- I'm almost done --

as a policy matter, the thing to think about is this:

what enables all of this choice in industrial societies

is material affluence.

There are lots of places in the world,

and we have heard about several of them,

where their problem is not that they have too much choice.

Their problem is they have too little.

So the stuff I'm talking about is the peculiar problem

of modern, affluent, Western societies.

And what is so frustrating and infuriating is this:

Steve Levitt talked to you yesterday

about how these expensive and difficult-to-install child seats

don't help.

It's a waste of money.

What I'm telling you is that these expensive, complicated choices --

it's not simply that they don't help.

They actually hurt.

They actually make us worse off.

If some of what enables people in our societies

to make all of the choices we make

were shifted to societies in which people have too few options,

not only would those people's lives be improved,

but ours would be improved also.

This is what economists call a "Pareto-improving move."

Income redistribution will make everyone better off,

not just poor people,

because of how all this excess choice plagues us.

So to conclude.

[You can be anything you want to be -- no limits.]

You're supposed to read this cartoon and, being a sophisticated person, say,

"Ah! What does this fish know? Nothing is possible in this fishbowl."

Impoverished imagination, a myopic view of the world --

that's the way I read it at first.

The more I thought about it, however,

the more I came to the view that this fish knows something.

Because the truth of the matter is,

if you shatter the fishbowl so that everything is possible,

you don't have freedom.

You have paralysis.

If you shatter this fishbowl so that everything is possible,

you decrease satisfaction.

You increase paralysis, and you decrease satisfaction.

Everybody needs a fishbowl.

This one is almost certainly too limited --

perhaps even for the fish, certainly for us.

But the absence of some metaphorical fishbowl is a recipe for misery

and, I suspect, disaster.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)