The Paradox of Choice 537
sproketboy writes "Psychology professor Barry Schwartz has written a book which is a must read by those wanting to get Linux on the Desktop.
Dr. Schwartz examines the problem of too much choice in our society. Maybe Microsoft has it right after all?
Here's a video interview with Dr. Schwartz,
a review of the book from the New Yorker and
more info from PBS." Of course, the choice issue applies to far more than desktop computers, but is still instructive in that area. Thanks to Stefan Hudson for a SciAm story that has more information.
Freedom of Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom From Choice
Is what you want.
(Are we not men?)
Re:Freedom of Choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Going back to the current topic however, it seems like everyone is making this desktop choice issue way too political IMHO. It should be about what the needs are of the users. Isn't that what we as technology professionals are supposed to look to? (tech hippocratic oath if you will?) For some users, we want to limit their options because they don't have the knowledge/experience/brain capacity? to choose the correct option for what they are trying to do. Thank you M$ for aknowledging that. However, there are increasingly more people who DO have the knowledge/experience/... (especially with a whole generation of kids being brought up to use this stuff) that need to have the choices. If the future inventors, artists, and innovators have their tools dictated to them in nice neat little "luser" packages, then how much will that limit their ability to invent, create, and innovate? And how much will the corporation that controls all the tools become in control of the society in dictating who has the tools to do things and who doesn't. [Maybe a caste system of technology dictated by M$ on the horizon?]
-- my random thoughts
Re:Freedom of Choice (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Freedom of Choice (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not making things easier. It's deferring responsibility.
Re:Freedom of Choice (Score:3, Insightful)
So, essentially you just hand the user a bag of bricks?
The perfect interface for the novice and for the computer expert are not the same.
It's not just the interface. It's the whole program. You can't just remove a few buttons and say "now the interface is perfect for the novice". You actually need completely different layouts and different functionality. Frankly I don't think it can be done. I think you'll almost
Re:Freedom of Choice (Score:5, Interesting)
When the USA was founded, freedom was an important argument, but it should be seen in the settings of the late 18th century.
I have been reading a lot about the early days of the USA and the following is my recolelction of what I read about the discussions regarding the exact form of government that the USA got at the time.
In that time, there has been a lot of discussion in the USA and France about the different models of government without monarch.
There is a choice between a few systems there, and 2 of them were discussed a lot in detail:
- The republic of Sparta
- The democracy of Athens.
What they ended with is somethign that looks a lot more like the republic of Sparta then the democracy of Athens.
Bottomline, an elite is in charge of the country, however, this elte is elected.
This means that people cannot make direct choices in matters that concern the country as a whole, but they can appoint those who can make those choices.
At the time, people were afraid that the purely democratic way would result in chaos and unlimited individualism. The Spartan system didn't provide for the freedom that people demanded and was too much of a tirany.
In the end, it did end up folowing the Spartan model, but with an elected elite.
What this tells me is that the founders were actually looking for a way to limit individualism at least to the point where peopel would not act against the common good, and in the hope that peopel would contribute to the common good, while at the same time trying to maintain as much freedom as possible.
I believe it is a bit simplistic to say that Freedom is THE thing the USA was founded on, it was an important aspect, but in the end, balance to get a state that worked for as big a part of its citizens as possible, and finding the right balance between individualism and the common good were at least as important if not more important.
It seems to me that the way political parties function in the USA is pretty much a continuation of English tradition. A rather substantial part of the representative democracies in the world have more then 2 major parties, and do indeed need coalition governments. Few of those have the problems that we have seen for decades in Italy where a government wouldn't last more then a few months, in fact, Germany, The Netherlands and Belgium are 3 examples of countries with very stable governments while having many political parties.
A basicly 2 party system (with all respect for the man, I'll skip Nadar, untill some major change happens to how the US population percieves politics, I am afraid he has little chance whatsoever) makes life easy.
Political views can be put into a black/white perspective, and there is no need for cooperation since one side will end up beign in power while the other side will have to wait and watch untill the next elections (yeah yeah, I know it is a bit more complex then that due to the way the senate and congress work in the USA where you can have a republican president with a democratic congress for example).
The black/white choice makes it easy because people don't have to think too much about things of which they often don't see the direct relation to their daily life.
Most people want simple choices if any at all for things that they are not really interested in but want huge variety of choice once they are interested.
Re:Freedom of Choice (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
Choice is not wealth, especially not when 99% of the choices are crap. Having hundreds of different phone plans to choose from does not make me wealthy. Having good companions, good food, nice toys and tools, and a warm dry place to sleep and keep my toys and tools, makes me wealthy. Wealth is satisfaction of needs and wants, which can either come from being satisfied with less, or from having more.
While freedom implies choice, choice does not imply fr
Re:Freedom of Choice (Score:3, Funny)
Referring to another reply, yes, it is VERY painful to know that Swiffer is using "Whip it" to sell to housewives. I only hope it's some sort of sick, jocko-homo joke by the spudboys on all of us...
Re:Freedom of Choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Three Links?! (Score:5, Funny)
should i post (Score:4, Funny)
Scientific American Article (Score:5, Informative)
Scientific American: The Tyranny of Choice [ PSYCHOLOGY ] [sciam.com]
Logic suggests that having options allows people
to select precisely what makes them happiest. But, as studies show, abundant choice often makes for misery
Re:Scientific American Article (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a time when I would have chosen to read Scientific American, but now I choose not to.
Gee - choice. And I chose. And I'm happy with my choice.
That wasn't too difficult. I don't need a massage. OK, I do, but that's because I did a 60 mile bike ride this weekend and my legs are a bit cranky.
Personally, I think Professor Schwartz misses the cause and effect. These people who stress over too many choices could b
Too much choice? (Score:3, Funny)
Linux (and Pizza) is like a Blowjob, no matter how bad it is, its still pretty good!
Re:Too much choice? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too much choice? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too much choice? (Score:2)
You've apparently never gotten a blowjob from my ex-girlfriend.
So why not do both? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can have a simple desktop that Joe Sixpack can play with, and at the same time set up a dialogue that allows the tweaker in some of us to have free reign over what each little widget and bit of desktop does.
I just don't get why it has to be such an "either or" choice here...
Re:So why not do both? (Score:2)
The company that does this well and
Re:So why not do both? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So why not do both? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of "easy to use" packages for linux, but having 10 easy to use programs with 30 hard to use programs makes for a desk
Re:So why not do both? (Score:3, Interesting)
As much as I hate to say it, the problem isn't "hiding" the choice, it's making the "desktop" of every linux system the same, so that users can transfer knowledge. This is true of MacOS, and it's true of Windows within a given version. (MS are less good at this.)
If a user sits down at a high school linux system and learns how to start his or her favourite word processor, then sits down at another system elsewhere with a different Window manager and desktop environment... what now?
Sure, they'll learn not t
Re:So why not do both? (Score:4, Insightful)
Money.
Though it really, really grieves me to say this, Apple got this right first, and Microsoft eventually learned from Apple and their own customer feedback. The only people who want a whole bunch of choice and configurability from computers are geeks like you and me who enjoy the computer as a thing-in-itself. Everyone else is just trying to use the computer to accomplish their jobs, a particular hobby, or something else where the machine is just a means to an end. And those people are where the money is. (There certainly isn't much money in folks like me who rejected the Macintosh because they preferred the joys of the Applesoft command prompt and 6502 machine language programming!)
It also means less expensive support if you don't have to train your support drones to answer questions about a million conceivable configuration possibilities.
This is no doubt what Novell is thinking. For all I know, the executives at Novell think free and open software is a great thing in and of itself, but at the end of the day, their jobs depend on making money, so reducing interface choice is an eminently rational route for them to choose.
Novell's efforts will go to whatever they decide is the "best" interface, period. If geeks like you and me want special feature X, we'll have to code it ourselves, because only we care. There is a sliding scale of preference for complexity in users, starting with zero for the general public and sliding all the way to infinity for Java development toolchains, in inverse proportion to the likelihood of profit.
This is, however, nothing new.
annoying... (Score:5, Funny)
Then again, if we didn't have as many choices, I might not be able to find one thing I like in the first place, and thus probably wouldn't go back to eat there - I'll choose to go somewhere else.
But if that choice was taken away, I'd have to eat something I didn't particularly like, which never killed anyone.
Morale of the story? Having too many choices is the real reason I'm a picky eater.
Re:annoying... (Score:3, Insightful)
imagine if the waiter came out and said:
well, the chef has some chicken, some salmon, a couple a nice cuts of beef... some vegetables, this list of spices, and some potatoes...
what would you like?
Wow... (Score:2, Interesting)
But anyway, I know I enjoy my choices. I can choose linux or windows. I much prefer choice to no choice. Does anyone really believe that we are better off when we can't make decisions for ourselves?
Sure, it might be nice to be a little drone in the big hive... You don't have to put any effort into thinking for yourself, or expanding your mind, since the hive could really care less about your individuality. In fact, indivduality is discouraged.
I dunno, I think lin
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, the idea is not to take away all choices from you, but to limit the choices to a respectable number. This is NOT a new idea. Your choice of Windows or Linux is not a problem. The problem, as was explained, is like when you try to choose a cereal. You have over 200 different brands. It becomes overwhelming the number of choices. It's also like wine. Walk into a SAQ (Canadian
Apple saw this problem during the 90s (Score:5, Informative)
And they re-created it with the iPod (Score:3, Interesting)
My first Walkmen (dating back to 1984) were cassettes, and while you could carry extra tapes, you were largely stuck with one or two and even then skipping around wasn't much of an option (no music search on a Walkman I could afford until the mid 1990s). So you listened to bands you really liked or spent a lot of time making a few mix tapes to guarantee you'd like most of the songs.
Re:Apple saw this problem during the 90s (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more importantly, this philosophy extended to the Macintosh API. Even Microsoft moved in this direction. Bill Gates once said, "Why should everyone in the world have to write a File-Open dialog?" The Microsoft Common Controls API was the best thing that happened to Win16 programmers back in the early '90s.
Yet, after a few years, Microsoft started putting together OLE, DDE, ActiveX, and a bunch more stuff - there were tons of choices. Consider Microsoft's media player: there was a text-based API, a procedure call API, and an object oriented API. Microsoft programming has been getting harder, thus they introduce
I'm all for choice when it works. For example, KDE offers you tons of choices; by default there's this multiple-virtual-desktop thing with all sorts of options and shortcut keys and soforth. But the one choice I want - the ability to stop files and folders on my local harddrive from acting like hyperlinks - isn't available. I suppose that, given a few months of practice, I could get used to treating my hard drive like a website, but it isn't working out for me at the moment.
I dunno if I have a real point here. But I think Extreme Programming has at least one useful idea: customer stories. Try writing down all the things a user wants to do - "Map a Network Drive", "Change double-click behavior", "Organize My Documents" - and then put together an obvious way for the user to do it, or (if it's too hard to make it obvious) at least a straightforward help page that explains the task.
Am I rambling? Feel free to call me redundant.
Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
When an interface gives you dozens or hundreds of different choices, it's because the programmer (or designer) was lazy. Instead of trying to figure out -- in advance, or by context -- what options would be best for the user, the programmer throws his hands up in the air and says: "YOU figure it out, loser!".
There are SO MANY instances where programs insist on making you make irrelevant, useless choices. Just look at the typical installation program, for example. Like 95% of users, I don't CARE where the program is installed, what the application is named, or what skin I'd like the interface to use. I just want the damn thing installed -- and stop bothering me, dammit!
An interface with fewer options is easier to use, no doubt about it. An interface with fewer, well-selected options also makes a BETTER program.
Good Title (Score:5, Interesting)
From the title, I thought this was going to be a deep mathematical or philosophical piece that I would have to give a lot of thought to.
I do agree with concept that we have too much choice in our society, or rather, we are deep in information overload. Too much choice is not a problem if you can quickly whittle down what you want and what you don't want. The problem is when the choices become confusing and ambiguous - and I think that has happened for the average individual. For instance, go into an applience store and say you want a tv, then hold on to your butts, because you're going to be there for a while. Then pretend you didn't know what all the fancy jargon stuff means (like the average consumer). If that wasn't bad enough, I think marketers actually inflate the problem on purpose, making it seem that there is more choice than there actually is - since that boosts the chances that a consumer will buy your product.
Re:Good Title (Score:5, Insightful)
I think marketers actually inflate the problem on purpose, making it seem that there is more choice than there actually is - since that boosts the chances that a consumer will buy your product.
They do this, and it's really bad in small countries; in some markets, you can go to every store in a town and find the same range of products, which have all come through the same two importers (two, so there's no monopoly, I guess).
But there's another insidious problem with "choice" - Most of the time, you aren't making one. I went to a local supermarket which is the only one open at 4 am, and there are signs saying "Thank you for choosing to shop at [supermarket name here]". The only choice I made ws to get food now or later, not to shop there. Or you get a Dell and it has Windows on it, and there's a little note saying "Thank you for choosing Microsoft" or similar. You didn't choose it, it just came with the computer whether you liked it or not.
People are so used to being told they are making choices when they plainly are not. When confronted with a real decision, it overwhelms them and they freak out and run back to their comfort zone. The paradox of choice is not that we have too much choice, it's that when given a real one most people don't want it anyway.Cost of Choice: Social Pressure, Societal Scale (Score:5, Insightful)
Very good points. I see the issue in terms of 4 factors:
Rising Cost of Decision Making: Excessive options and excessive information on each option drive up the cost of choice. The cost of decision making can easily exceed the marginal benefit of making the decison.
Psychological Risk of Decision Making: Some people are more comfortable without choice because it absolves them of responsibility. If you have only one choice, you get to bitch about it. If you have multiple choices and you chose incorrectly, you have only yourself to blame.
Cost of Competition: We seem to live in a competative, judgemental socitey in which people are judged by the choices they make. This increases the importance of every minor decision. Faced with a number of reasonably good options, people often spend too much time deciding. They feel compelled to do this because of the perceived social penalty of making the wrong choice. Nobody wants to pick the second-best option even if it is nearly as good as the #1 option.
Scale of Society: The bigger problem is the increasing scale of society. Many might think that have umpteen types of mustard, text editors, or cars is too much. But there is no unanimous agreement on which alternatives to remove.
This problem will only get worse. I would wager that in most industries, the number of economically viable choices scales with the log of the market-accessible population. With global trade and rising standards of living, we will only see more choices.
It makes me think of a saying I heard somewhere... (Score:2, Interesting)
Choice is good... for now (Score:5, Insightful)
Even something as "basic" as word processing has changed radically in the last 10 years as a wider variety of people have gained access to computers. The "outliers" in the sample set have, in some cases, become the majority of users.
Open source OSes are especially subject to this. Our systems are designed by those who have a combination of real-world-need and ability to implement. As time goes on that will be a broader and broader segment, and others will be brought in to implement for those who have the need, but not the ability (certainly already happened in some areas).
Give computing 20 or so more years to find its feet and it will be time to make hard decisions, but for now I think choice is a good thing.
Now, moving on to the officeplace (which is where most people think of desktop computing in terms of adoption strategies), I think it's key that OS vendors such as Red Hat, Mandrakesoft, SuSE/Novell and others produce a desktop with clear defaults and clear ways for admins to limit choices. This is important for large scale systems admin where you are maintaining 2,000 systems on people's desks. You need some uniformity in order to scale that support reasonably. This does NOT meant that choice should not be available, but that it should be available to the admins who install the systems and the system should behave well once those choices are made.
I think Red Hat and Mandrake do a decent job here. I'm not as familliar with SuSE, so I can't say. But, that is clearly one of the jobs of a vendor: to establish best practices and ease compatibility.
Re:Choice is good... for now (Score:3, Interesting)
What? Sorry, no. More than ten years ago, I was doing word-processing using Mac Write II on a Macintosh classic, now I'm using Word X on a Dual G4. Would you please tell me what radical changes happened in word processing? The interface is basically the same, the text window, the ruler above with the tab stops and some buttons for getting bold etc. Many as
You can give people choices ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Summery for those who can't choose a link (Score:4, Funny)
It's a standard part of the evolutionary curve (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a standard aspect of evolution: early forms show extraordinary variation and complexity; as time goes on the simplest and most economical solutions get standardized and the bizarre varieties get killed off.
The same happens in technology, which is why we converge on mature standards such as TCP/IP and (dare I say it) Linux.
It's just like... (Score:4, Funny)
So many fetishes, so little kleenex.
Josh
This just in! (Score:2, Funny)
With MS there is no choice at all. (Score:4, Interesting)
Partially right - need classes. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is made worse by the rapid improvement. Rules that apply last year do not apply this year.
But on the other side of that if the manufactures were not scum, that problem can easily be dealt with.
All it takes is a classification system, similar to what we do with cars.
People know what you mean when you say:
Compact
mini-van
jeep
SUV
sports-car
station waggon
What we need are some similar terms for the newer technologies to become more common.
We need categories like: game-system (high end video/audio), word-system (low-end MS word,Excel,presentationsm with low memory, low speed etc.), net-server (designed to host a web site or other network), etc. etc. to be come common terms that everyone knows and uses.
Choices != decisions (Score:5, Insightful)
Some simple illustrations of this. Choice: "these are the desktop themes you can play with". Decision: "please choose a desktop theme to continue installation.
Choice: "tired of your wife? Here are ten more girls to choose from." Decision: "you gonna marry me or what?!"
Choice: "choose from fifty different fabric colors for your car interior". Decision: "what color interior do you want your next subway car to have?"
Basically a good designer maximises choice but minimizes the decisions needed to get started.
I believe the article has made the error of confusing the two.
Re:Choices != decisions (Score:4, Insightful)
The barrier to Linux adoption is mostly entry. There are not only so many choices (some required, most just clouding the decision) to make the first step, but a new way of thinking about software ("How good can free software be?"), new applications, (not really) new security dynamics, new names, new acronyms, new conventions, etc.
The way to mediate all these is to make a common, extremely well documented and supported, simple, and well-crafted base design. Introduce the design (maybe through big corporate rollouts, preinstallations on PC's) and then let people play with it. But there can only be so many designs to fit the market. The average users does not need to consider over a dozen Linux flavors (let alone two desktop environments).
I think Linux could be a little bit more like OS X in these regards.
Re:Choices != decisions (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that most people posting WRT this issue think that it is a question between choice or no choice. Of course, I want choice. Just keep my decisions to a minimum, and provide
Don't worry your pretty little head (Score:4, Insightful)
What's interesting to me is that things that people have had to choose from for many number of years have special agents who specialize in making these choices; travel agents, real estate agents and career counselors. I expect that we'll see more and more of these agents in the future, though it's hard for me to imagine how a breakfast cereal agent would work exactly.
I understand that some people may feel overwhelmed by the breadth of choices presented to the average person, but it seems rather condescending to imply that you ought to give up your choices. The underlying attitude seems to be choice is bad for _you_, and I'll go ahead and keep reading the Economist and drinking my reserve cognac.
Concluding that choice is bad because it causes indecision is like concluding that the sun is bad because it causes sunburn.
After all, is freedom really slavery; ignorance, strength?
OS Winner by TKO (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, Microsoft being right or wrong doesn't really factor in here. It's the lack of effective competition that's creating a lack of choice. Apple OS has more or less limited themselves to their own platform, which is generally more expenisive than the average computer user is willing to pay, while Linux is still too obscure for the average user to screw around with. It's not that Windows is a spectacular product that by nature crushes all competition in it's path, it's the fact that what competition exists has been limiting itself in one form or another, giving MS free reign on the PC. As such, most products now cater to it, which makes it more popular.
Too much competition doesn't even begin to enter into the PC OS market, because there never has been that amount of competition. MS won by default, which has nothing to do with them being right or wrong.
Re:OS Winner by TKO (Score:4, Insightful)
There was that much competition in the 1980's, before Microsoft became dominant.
You must be too young to remember this, but there was a day when you could go to a store like Computerland and be faced with a choice of 8 different computers. None of which interoperated with one another.
Over time people got tired of this, they got tired of seeing something and finding out it wouldn't work on their computer. So they started making purchasing decisions based upon compatibility. This led to the final decision to standardize on Microsoft. This has also been going on with hardware, the advent of CPU sockets and SIMMs, IDE ports, USB ports, and so forth is all about making the computing easy to understand and hook up and make work.
You're right in that this doesn't make MS right or wrong. Microsoft never made that decision, it was instead the Consumers.
But it does help to explain the dominance of Microsoft software.
This is a well-known persuasive issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I'm not suggesting that choice is bad - but if you want someone to decide you must initially present them with a small number of options - A or B - not A or B or C or D or
Re:This is a well-known persuasive issue... (Score:3, Insightful)
The choices also must mean something. "Gnome or KDE?" or "SMB or IPP?" probably don't mean much to your average user, at least when they're getting started. If they need to make those choices before they can get any work done, it'll be considerably off-putting.
this is akin to voting.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Makes sense to me: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, it's that Coke in a 1-liter bottle versus 6-cans versus 6 glass-bottles versus...
I tend to re-buy crap for this very reason: the first purchase I realize now why it was so cheap, the second purchase while more expensive I realize it's just over-hyped. The third typically is a good cost-to-quality ratio.
Joel on Software (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary (as I read it)? People like choice when it's related to what they want to do. If they're making a greeting card, they want to choose what font it uses and what overused clip-art to use. They don't want to choose its orientation as it comes out of the printer, or whether it's saved in MS Word or PDF or RTF or HTML or BMP.
So when I install a linux distribution, and I want to compose a word processing document? I don't care all that much whether I'm using KOffice or StarOffice or OpenOffice.org or AbiWord or whatever, because the point is not what program I'm using. The point is to write a document, and I shouldn't have to make a needless choice just to get to that point.
That's why modularity (versus "yes" or "no" to compiling it in) in the linux kernel is such a good idea, for example. It allows me to say, "make this choice for me if I need it, and don't hassle me about it."
Choice is at odds with design (Score:3, Interesting)
With Linux things are worse, because the decisions forced on the user run much deeper. Now you don't just wade through pages of configuration settings in KDE, you have to choose which window manager to use in the first place. Bleah. I'm a techie, a programmer, and I don't want to mess with this stuff. Just give me something reliable and WELL THOUGHT OUT, and I'll use it.
For Linux choice should come with experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Less choice, less questions, less confusion. So far I have had no complaints. Obviously, as he gets comfortable he will want more choices later. At the beginning, I think the overwhelming amount of choice is what turns new users away from Linux.
This problem touchs only 1 kind of people. (Score:3, Interesting)
of having too much choices (I think it was the author of this book) and he was clear about
something, it only is a problem for one type of people; those who are not satisfied with their choice until they absolutly know for sure they made the best choice. Those with a "good is good enough for me" mentality do not have any problem with too many choices.
Choose Your Own Adventure (Score:3, Funny)
"Do you want to repair the damaged robot? Turn to p. 42"
"Or you want to flee with the princess? Turn to p.22"
Choices? Bah! I just gave up and went with the old "one narrative only" books. Much more satisfying.
Apple, not Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft, on the other hand, is all about choice (within well-defined, money-making parameters): you get zillions of audio and video CODECs, lots of configuration options for the UI, preference panels with sub-panels until your eyes glaze over, dozens of classes that all do the same thing, and let's not forget an ever expanding list of third-party utilities and add-ons to make up for the choices Microsoft didn't give you and the problems Microsoft created while creating all that choice. Microsoft isn't kidding when they are saying that they are giving you choices.
UNIX, like Apple, traditionally has made choices and stuck by them. For example, the UNIX folks at Bell Labs understood that the use of "tab" in Makefiles probably was a mistake, but it wasn't a big enough mistake to create another "make" utility (at least not for a couple of decades). And, yes, the file system may not be the ideal IPC or database mechanism, but it worked well enough and provided a good, simple answer.
Linux has inherited some of the UNIX simplicity and philosophy, although, sadly, there has been a lot of uncertainty and waffling come into it, mostly from people who are trying to turn Linux into Windows.
Choice is Wonderful (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only is choice of tires good, but choice of vendors. The qualification is, you have to be smart about it. I can see how choice could be bad for people with low comprehension skills. For those who negotiate prices and want the best quality, the more choice the better.
Reviews, either formal or informal, are key for high involvement purchases (choice in low involvement purchases don't matter as much, because the product is inexpensive, not critical, etc.).
Biased... (Score:3, Interesting)
Schwartz wrote a paper for the January, 2000 edition of the Journal of the America Psychological Association, American Psychologist, titled "Self-Determination, the Tyranny of Freedom."
The artical basically lays the groundwork for restricting freedom for people's own good, and to force beliefs on people for their own good. Coming from a libertarian viewpoint myself, the entire article was disturbing in a very subtle way -- and it was clear that a political or social agenda was a subtext.
It appears he is simply continuing on this theme.
Right choice is bad. One party system is good! (Score:3, Interesting)
The old MS joke comes to mind:
One world, One web, One program - Microsoft Ad
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer
Either this guy think this is a good idea or he doesn't understand choice.
The current choice is simply:
Easy oneway to do things. (well if you don't make use of its unix background wich you never need to touch if you don't want to)
Oneway for the OS. (easy until you become an admin, the old change network settings example comes to mind)
Choice for everything else. Just check how many email programs and office suits there really are for windows.
Roll your own. Choice in everything except hardware. And even there you got choice. Just write your own.
For the necrophiliacs.
But how is this any different from choosing a car? Choosing a house? Choosing a meal?
Do I want a car I can fix myself if needed (handy if you drive in remote places) or just a little town cruiser how about no car at all? Do I want my own house I can rebuild however I want or do I want a nice rented apartment fully furnitured with a maid? Do I want a meal I can microwave and be ready or do I want to spend hours in the kitchen to create a feast fit a king?
Now some people here seem to want everyone to make the same choice they have. This applies equally to all computer OSes. These people accuse other OS users of being zealots and never realise they are a very black pot.
I for one am not scared of choice. I am scared one day I will not have a choice. Choose whatever OS you want. But let it be YOUR choice.
Funny This Should Come Up (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The desire to be an individual. To be unique.
2. The desire to be part of a group. To be accepted as being the same as others.
I'm not sure of the forces driving these two desires, but it certainly has an effect on making choices. Which leads to another issue which I think this article was focusing on: who has the control?
In situations where one entity has all the control (a centralized system), there are fewer choices to make and therefore the system tends to work better. However the downside is that the system will entity will naturally impose restrictions. This is the point where the desire for individuality comes into direct conflict with a centralized system.
In a situation where the individual has control, the system they are working within must allow for a variety of choices to be made since no individual is the same. With all this choice, the system has a tendency to be very complex and break down frequently (witness Macs vs. PCs, with PCs being more complex). It also has a tendency to lead to situaitons where there is no continuity. On the PC you have a gazillion choices no matter what OS you choose. Expand that to the hardware, and you have even more choices. With a Mac, you only have a handful of choices, but they are the "best" choices based on experience. The user gives up a certain level of control for a simpler experience.
So... what's the answer? There really isn't one. It's a flaw in human design. We would be largely better off without the desire for individuality and centralized control, but we would also be a lot less interesting. However, the trains would probably run on time...
Chooser & Copier Genese (Score:3, Interesting)
Or maybe I'm just full of it. I don't know. Maybe the moderators will decide for me.
Afflictions of Affluence (Score:3, Interesting)
In short the article goes on to say that because we're so rich and food is so cheap our portion sizes have been getting bigger. And that's why we're becoming fat.
We're facing a constant time crunch because we constantly view our time as more and more valuable (time is money in our capitalistic culture) ergo there's this need to cram all our activities into shorter time periods.
Lastly, ther'es buyer's remorse simply because we havfe so many choices out there. You buy one mp3 player but have time to research all 100. You're likely to find a feature in another mp3 player you wish you had.
Re:Sounds like Commie Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
-russ
Re:Sounds like Commie Propaganda (Score:2)
Reducing the number of potential choices available to someone makes them more likely to make a choice
If you present someone with a large number of choices, they immediately perceive that as requiring a large amount of work on their part in order to discern which choice they "should" take. They may choose instead to not make a choice at all.
At some point they will encounter a website/system/shop/application that presents them with fewer choices, and if they should choos
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:5, Informative)
I run a retail store. I have a large number of products that cover one particular need. Without help, customers just get overwhelmed and leave. We have to ask them what they need, and help them make a decision. Same thing with Linux, except that there's no help. You install a distro, get 1000's of programs, 95% which are useless to the user, and they get overwhelmed and bail.
Unless some expertise is offered (ie: each distro picks ONE office suite, ONE browser, ONE desktop, etc.), it's just too much to deal with, and completely unnecessary.
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:2)
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:5, Informative)
The reason the average person doesn't switch to Linux is a lot like the reason the average person doesn't build their own computer; not because it's hard, but because it gives you too many choices (hard drive, motherboard, processor, case, etc.), and most people would rather just pick up a box that they can plug in and use.
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider: how many manufacturers and models of cars do we have? Consumer electronics? Colours and styles of paint?
When you go to the grocery, do you ask for 'meat', or do you specify species and cut?
You can feel free to live in your one size fits all soylent world. Go to your car dealership, and say like a simpleton, "I WANT A CAR". I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige you, and fill you out with a nice payment plan that suits your needs without you even having to read
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:5, Funny)
What the hell is this "meat"? Just give me a store full of gray boxes labelled "Food", damnit!
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't go in there knowing what all these options are. Most of them are shit you've never heard of. What the hell is Quadromechinational Steering and why the hell does it cost $5000? They tell you that stuff, and they help you make a decision on wether you want it, or want to take the normal power steering everybody else has.
They don't make the choice for you, and the above post doesn't suggest that. But you aren't just shown a list of the fifteen engines, four steering assemblies, seven or more fucking DOOR HINGES that any given car can have installed at the factory while the salesman sits there with a blank stare waiting for you to pick which ones you want.
Most of it you just get and don't worry about.
I don't care what kind of flanges are on my trunk door, just so it opens and closes, I'm happy. But I could picked from two different flanges on that hood. I don't even know what a flange is or does, let alone how one or the other is better, but they both cost the same thing, so I don't care.
After wrecking the car I've been talking about, I also learned that the 1997 Chevy Lumnia could have had one of four different engines, each of which has two different head assemblies. I don't know what all that shit is, and I don't want to pick one or the other.
I want that white car over there. You put the shit in it that makes it drive, I don't want to worry about flanges and fittings and what kind of clips hold the radiator hose in place. Fine, ok, I have seven different fan belt choices - I DON'T CARE, just make it DRIVE.
See? That's how people are with their computers. The coice is there, but they don't know what all this shit is. Yes, they use it, but they don't know one from the next, and that's why the vast majority of people still use Windows. You get the stuff, it's there, you don't have to think about it.
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:4, Insightful)
If you plan on spending $20,000 on your new car, and you plan on keeping for ten years, then you damn well better know the "door hinge" options and figure out which one you like the best. One little thing like a squeaky hinge (hey, you cheaped out) will annoy you for years and years.
Anyone who walks onto a car lot without knowing basically what they want, with the options they want, and knowing the price they should expect to pay, is an idiot who is going to end up paying too much money for a car they didn't really want.
Long term purchases require some actual THOUGHT be put into it.
What annoys me is people taking a half an hour to decide what they want to order off the menu when they won't even care tomorrow.
As far as computers are concerned, your choices today may impact you long after that 10 year old car is gone. Then again, it may not. Pick MP3 now and convert it to the next great format every few years. Whatever.
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:3, Funny)
Why didn't anyone tell me that before I decided to get married? It was hell until I got divorced.
--jeff++
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:4, Funny)
I used to ask for "human, lean breast" but now they just call the cops when they see me coming. :-(
I don't get no respect.
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:5, Insightful)
How many models of cars that do things differently from every other model of car? If I buy a Ford, I don't need to take training because my last car was a Pontiac. Everything works the same. Sure, the placement of the A/C or cruise controls are a little different, but the steering wheel isn't square and in the trunk. The basics of "a car" does not change: it has four wheels, (in the States) a steering wheel on the left front side, two-three pedals, etc. Hell, even the order of the gears on an automatic are the same (P R N D 1 2 3).
Contrast that with Linux distros where some applications are present, and some are not. Some applications are placed here, and some are placed there. Some use this window manager, some use this one. Some keybindings are like this, some are like that. Some will work with hardware better than others. Some have this, some have that. Hell, I've tried 2-3 distros in the last few months, and only one that I remember contained a GUI util to change the screen resolution (an important util for noobs as most distros set your damn resolution to the absolute highest it will go, regardless of how you want it or not!)
I can climb into any car, start it up and drive it. Change your Linux distro, or just upgrade in some cases, and you spend hours just trying to figure out where everything is. THIS is why Windows is winning the desktop day in and day out. It has nothing to do with monopolies or political bullying. It never ceases to amaze me that the Linux community will stomp and scream like small children about anything that violates an open standard in any way, shape, or form, but outright REFUSES to create a single, standard, default desktop that is consistent across all distros. There's nothing stopping you or anyone else from changing it later, but start with SOMETHING.
Give 'em four tires and a steering wheel, if they want a Cartman antenna topper or a Jason Mewes window sticker, they can add it themselves. And, I know, there's gonna be tons of flames on this post..."Don't tell me what I can and can't run on my desktop!" "Who gives you the right to decide what's included in my distro?" For those contemplating such flames...get a clue. No one is suggesting locking anyone into a "one size fits all soylent world", idiot. They're suggesting giving a consistent base to build on.
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Thousands of programs? 95% of which are useless?
13 web browsers? 3 desktops? What Linux Distribution are you using?
Come on man, have you tried some modern distros oriented towards the new user? (I.e. Mandrake 9.2/10, SuSE)? They give you a default desktop. In mandrake's case, that is KDE. They give you one browser (Konqueror). One email client (kmail). The alternative apps are buried in menus, but those apps are NOT immediately viewable to the user.
Most modern distros do a very good job of eliminating excessive choice for the new user. Mandrake is the easiest, and you should be using it if you are a linux newb.
Re:Nice Troll (Score:4, Interesting)
Right, the result of which is even better than NineNine's "don't give me a choice" method of simplicity. The distro makes a good default choice, yet still provides the other choices, should you decide you want to try them.
It's the best of both worlds! I love Software Libre.
Re:Nice Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
I may be reletively clueless, but I'm curious. I now know what I can do with alot of that forme
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately.. it's usually the rule that stupid people get to be rich.
The gaining of wealth has nothing to do what what and how much you know.
it has everything to do with who you know, your sales ability or your ability to talk people out of their money for what you are offering..
very very few brilliant scientists or engineers are rich... it's tipically the businessmen and those good at selling that are.
and these peop
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozart and Picasso and Alexander the Great probably wouldn't be able to write a Perl script or analyze a chemical reaction if they were alive today. But I think few people would call any of them unintelligent.
As for wealth vs. intelligence, here's a book for you: "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." [amazon.com] A bit repetitive, but it talks at length about how someone can be very smart in some ways but not when it comes to money.
Being able to figure out the decay rate of a new radioactive isotope doesn't make you good at figuring out which underpriced region is going to have the next big real estate boom. But both of those things require smarts.
That said, at least one study [mugu.com] (admittedly, performed by someone whose views on the subject are controversial) shows a pretty good correlation between high IQ and financial success. That tracks pretty well with my experience in life: most of the rich people I know are pretty sharp. All of the self-made rich people I know are pretty sharp. If you can provide a pointer to any research showing a reverse correlation, I'd be fascinated to see it.
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:3, Funny)
Your [britneyspears.com]
wish [georgewbush.com]
is [ashton-kutcher.net]
my [jessicasimpson.com]
command [tori-spelling.com].
Looking at this list, it's a bit blonde-heavy. It seems further research into this strange pattern formation is required.
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:5, Interesting)
Every fork, every distro is one more nail in Linux's chances on the desktop. Linux is divinding and conquering itself. Pick a distro. Name it the One True Linux. Promote the hell out of it. Then you'll see results.
HP Cafeteria (Score:5, Funny)
Lunch, the HP Way
by Stephen Harrison and Noel Magee
This is the story of a different kind. No melting CPU's, no screaming disc drives, just the kind of psychological torture that scars a man for life.
I had a 9:00 meeting with my sales rep. I needed to buy an entire new series 70, the works. He said it'd take about an hour. Three hours later, we'd barely got the datacomm hardware down on paper, so he invited me downstairs for lunch.
This was my first experience in an HP cafeteria. Above the service counter was a menu which began...
MMU's (Main Menu Units)
0001A Burger. Includes sesame-seed bun.
Must order comdiments 00110A separately
001 Deletes seeds.
002 Expands burger to two patties.
00020A Double cheeseburger, preconfigured. Includes cheese,
bun and condiments.
001 Add-on bacon.
002 Delete second patty.
003 Replaces second patty with extra cheese.
00021A Burger Upgrade to Double Cheeseburger
001 From Single Burger.
002 From Double Burger.
003 Return credit for bun.
00220A Burger Bundle. Includes 00010A, 00210A and 00310A
001 Substitute root beer 00311A for cola 00310A.
My eyes glazed over. I asked for a burger and a root beer. The waitress looked at me like I was an alien.
"How would you like to order that, sir?"
"Quickly, if possible. Can't I just order a sandwich and a drink?"
"No sir. All our service is menu driven. Now what would you like?"
I scanned the menu. "How big is the 00010 burger?"
"The patty is rated at eight bites."
"Well, how about the rest of it?"
"I dont have the specs on that, sir, but I think it's a bit more."
"Eight bites is too small. Give me the Double Burger Upgrade."
My sales rep interrupted. "No, you want the Single Burger option 002 'expands burger to two patties'. The double burger upgrade would give you two burgers.
"But you could get return credit on the extra bun," the waitress chimed in, trying to be helpful, "although it isn't documented."
I looked around to see if anybody was staring at me. There was a couple in line behind us. I recognized one of them, a guy who merely mowed me down in the parking lot with his cherry-red '62 Vette. He was talking to some woman who was waving her arms around and looking very excited.
"What if... we marketed the bacon cheeseburger with the vegetable option and without the burger and cheese? It'd be a BLT!"
The woman charged off in the direction of the telephone, running steeplechases over tables and chairs. My waitress tried to get my attention again. "Have you decided, sir?"
"Yeah, give me the double burger- excuse me, I mean the 00020A with the option 001. I want everything on it." She put me down for the Condiment Expansion Kit, which included mayonnaise, mustard and pickles with a option to substitute relish.
"Ketchup." I hated to ask. "I want ketchup on that, too."
"That's not a condiment, sir, it's a Tomato Product." My sales rep butted in again. "That's not a supported configuration."
"What now?" I kept my voice steady.
"Too juicy. The bun can't handle it."
"Look. Forget the ketchup, just put some lettuce and tomatoes on it."
The waitress backed away from the counter. "I'm sorry, sir, but that's not supported either, the bun can take it but the burger won't fit in the box. The sales rep defended himself. "Just not at first release." "It is being beta-tested, sir."
I checked the overhead screen. Fries, number 000210A, option 110. French followed by option 120, English. "What the hell are English Fries?" I turned to the sales rep. "Chips they call them. We sell a lot of them."
I gave up. "OK, OK just give me a plain vanilla Burger Bundle." The confused the waitress profoundly. "Sir, Vanilla as an option is configured
Your problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. You're so heroic.
Your problem is that you think NORMAL people--i.e., people who don't visit Slashdot 10+ times a day and download the latest point release of something called "GNOME"--have the time, energy, and patience to learn which of their 8 text editors is the best. To them, the whole idea is ridiculous, and they'll ask you, "why don't they just make one good one?"
Are you going to whine at them how you have no sympathy for people who blah blah blah something about poor people in India blah blah blah, or are you just going to nod and agree like any sane person would?
The day anti-social, non-approachable nerds like you (this is not a troll but an accurate description of the mindset) stop controlling the direction of the Linux desktop community is the day it finally starts gaining real momentum outside of its current niche position.
Re:Your problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If they don't care enough to find out, why should I care if they don't find out? They don't need the "best", they need what meets their requirements. And the only one who knows their requirements is them. They have to determine what they need, what they don't need and what they don't care about. Then they have to make an effort to find out what meets those needs. If they're not willing to do that, fine, that's their choice. But don't limit my choices because some people are too lazy to make one.
"Too many choices" is just another way of saying "I'm too lazy to think for myself."
Re:Your problem (Score:3)
ANd the simple fact that they have to do that before it will be usable means that Linux has no chance on the desktop.
I dislike lack of choice, but the simple fact that Windows comes with about everythign the average non poweruser is going to need without them havign to put any thought into it whatsoever is one of the biggest reasons of its suc
Re:Too many choices?? Hardly (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to realize this is a collective phenomenon, and it doesn't necessarily apply to each individual. I'm not a psychologist or anything, but I have observed this phenomenon.
Re:I think (Score:3, Insightful)
Smarter people should find ways to get the rest to do informed choice instead of "mass-hysteria-induced" choice. Getting "smarter" people to do choices for "dumber" people will only allow them to remain "dumb", even if temporarily more productive.
Re:I think (Score:3, Insightful)
A huge percentage of the Windows user base is people who do not have a clue how to use a computer. This forces MS to design their products so that these people do not call MS PSS eighteen times a day because they've broken something.
If you had any clue you'd realize that MS doesn't want to force people into a mold. They want to give the idiots of the world a software experience that is powerful enough to be useful and "powerless" enough so that they can't hurt themselves. Mi
Re:I think (Score:3, Insightful)
Aunt Anne doesnt know which e-mail program to use in linux, but can cook better than most of us. She can choose a better sauce for this or that.
Joe sixpack know how to choose too. He know what the best beer is.
People want to choose when they KNOW what is to be choosen.
Re:I think (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, your choice involves a significant investment of time. Changing your mind is a lot of work. With your programming language, your job, things like this, you are limited by the learning curve. Many PC games are suffering from this badly (although its not as bad as during the Sim era of the 90s when obtuse displays and complex missions and controls were the norm).
Combine this with the fact that your choices aren't very well explained - when I click around in many apps or application managers, I don't know whats what, what's better, what's worse. I don't know what music to download, what channels to watch. If there's a significant time investment in the wrong answer, I might just choose the safest bet. If the cost of a proper search for the rigth answer exceeds the benefits of finding the superiour solution, then I might just choose to do what everyone else does.
This is why we are stuck in a monoculture - society has made it very hard to even find the offstream material, and those in the offstream have not made it easy to know which of their offerings are meritorious for whom. I'm not pointing the finger - noone can blame independants for being disorganised - if they were organised, they wouldn't be the independants. But you see the problem. I don't like pop music, but finding good music is so much work. Solution? I'm finding every single old Depeche Mode and Collective Soul album I missed back in their heydays. When I run out of old music I like, I'll just stop listening. I've alraedy resorted to that for a while.
Not intelligence, time and patience (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people are not dumb, they just don't want to be bothered. I happen to be one of them.
Those who do wan't to be bothered will speak up anyway.
Re:Psychology not science (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd like to think that equations are harder to understand than complex human systems but then again you only believe what you want as it flatters you to think so.