4 ms·

The Paradox of Choice: The Advantages of Closing a Few Doors

54 points by robg 19y ago

edw519 19y ago
And how does this apply to UI design? (What is the optimal number of ways to do something, 1, many, or something in between?)
- robg 19y ago
  I think the choice is to give as few as possible. Not only will that help minimize development time, but you can always add based on what users demand.
- bayleo 19y ago
  The only thing you can really glean from this study regarding UI design will be that users can and will panic and reach for their back/undo buttons when options that were available to them previously are stripped away.
Tichy 19y ago
That experiment sounds too funny - I think I would panic, too, if doors suddenly started shrinking away.
- robg 19y ago
  Honestly, to me it's perfectly explained by embodiment theory. A disappearing door would seem to literally lock you in. Probably where their paradigm needs more testing. Would the results hold if instead giftboxes were shrinking away?
- maxwell 19y ago
  Give it a try... http://www.predictablyirrational.com/test-yourself/Doors.swf http://www.predictablyirrational.com/test-yourself/Doors.swf http://www.predictablyirrational.com/?page_id=117 http://www.predictablyirrational.com/?page_id=117
jkush 19y ago
Jesus, this is so weird. I've been spending the last few weeks trying to articulate a theory about the illusion of choice being used as a framework for power (can you tell by that statement I haven't quite figured it out just yet?). The discussion yesterday (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123081 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123081) about how to break out of paradigms and the Paradox of Choice are closely tied together with the idea I'm working on.
- robg 19y ago
  See also (where I got the more descriptive phrase in the title): http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/93 http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/93 http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/0060005688 http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/006000... To me, it also ties in with embodiment theory (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123243 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123243). We think we'd rather have the buffet, especially on first sight and with an empty stomach. But after gorging ourselves we realize we would have much rather had one really good dish than twenty mediocre ones.
  - jkush 19y ago
    I agree with you. What I'm more interested in however, is who really gets to say what dishes are on the buffet? The cooks? The consumers? My gut tells me the consumers have a lot less choice than it appears.
    - robg 19y ago
      If it's your restaurant, you do! Now, if you want to stay in business better to offer a few dishes (not a buffet) that people would kill to eat delivered by cooks who love great, simple food. (And yes, we can run with this line of thought all day. Mmmmmmm, embodiment.)
      - lg 19y ago
        Ah, the Jobsian theory of restaurants.
fleaflicker 19y ago
There is a startup equivalent to destroying your retreat options (from "How not to die"): I wish every startup we funded could appear in a Newsweek article describing them as the next generation of billionaires, because then none of them would be able to give up. The success rate would be 90%. I'm not kidding.
- SirWart 19y ago
  I definitely tell people I'm going to be working on a startup over the summer to force myself to do it. It's a surprisingly effective method actually.
deleted 19y ago
[deleted]
prakash 19y ago
"Engage in combat fully determined to die and you will be alive; wish to survive in the battle and you will surely meet death." Uesugi Kenshin (1530—1578) Applies equally to war & startups.
mynameishere 19y ago
I'm surprised by the war analogies. Withdrawals are an essential part of military strategy.
- ardit33 19y ago
  It is a good analogy. During WWII the soviet red army got smashed at the beginning by the germans, and was in retread (lost a lot of men and equipment). Millions of soldiers were captured. Hitler gave the order to summary execute all commanders and communist members found in each unit. Meanwhile, Stalin, pissed at the poor performance of its army, gave order to execute all the commanders who retreated, or their units gave up to the germans. Giving up, ment certain death, retreating ment execution, so the red army commanders; from simple captains, to even generals, were left with literally one choice: Fight to their death. At the end, we all know who won the war.
  - mynameishere 19y ago
    If the red army hadn't retreated initially it would have been annihilated. Again, an essential strategy.
  - run4yourlives 19y ago
    That's a piss poor understanding of history. The only thing that turned the tide of the war for the Russians was winter. Stalin's kill 'em all approach had virtually no effect on the performance of his army. In fact, Hitler's fight 'til the death orders ended up being laughed at my German commanders. When you're a nazi choosing to surrender to Stalin's red army, you understand the true meaning of death.
    - ardit33 19y ago
      "That's a piss poor understanding of history. The only thing that turned the tide of the war for the Russians was winter. Stalin's kill 'em all approach had virtually no effect on the performance of his army. " First of all, your "That's a piss poor understanding of history." is a pretty crappy comment for a forum like this that wants to stay civil. I hope you choose better wording and are not like this with your friends, and colleagues. Second, attributing the defeat of nazis to weather, is trivalizing the whole history. I am not saying Stalin's orders to not surrender won the war, but it was a huge factor on the battle field, while you say it had no effect. BBC - The Battle For Russia http://joox.net/cat/44/id/1971071 http://joox.net/cat/44/id/1971071 The nazis caught almost 2 million soviet prisoners in the first part of the war. Imagine those people actually haven't given up, but fought to death, then the outnumbered nazi machine would have never reached so close to Moscow (16 miles). One of the reason, after the war, a lot of ex-soviet prisoners, were treated really bad, almost as traitors.
walter_b_marvin 19y ago
Intresting. I thought Cortez initiated this stradegy
ph0rque 19y ago
Interesting... I find that sometimes, I am relieved when my choices shrink, or put another way, some choices are made for me.
redorb 19y ago
(Wish they would open a door) free open access to the site

54 points by robg 19y ago

And how does this apply to UI design? (What is the optimal number of ways to do something, 1, many, or something in between?)

robg 19y ago
I think the choice is to give as few as possible. Not only will that help minimize development time, but you can always add based on what users demand.
bayleo 19y ago
The only thing you can really glean from this study regarding UI design will be that users can and will panic and reach for their back/undo buttons when options that were available to them previously are stripped away.

Tichy 19y ago

That experiment sounds too funny - I think I would panic, too, if doors suddenly started shrinking away.

robg 19y ago
Honestly, to me it's perfectly explained by embodiment theory. A disappearing door would seem to literally lock you in. Probably where their paradigm needs more testing. Would the results hold if instead giftboxes were shrinking away?
maxwell 19y ago
Give it a try... http://www.predictablyirrational.com/test-yourself/Doors.swf http://www.predictablyirrational.com/test-yourself/Doors.swf http://www.predictablyirrational.com/?page_id=117 http://www.predictablyirrational.com/?page_id=117

jkush 19y ago

Jesus, this is so weird. I've been spending the last few weeks trying to articulate a theory about the illusion of choice being used as a framework for power (can you tell by that statement I haven't quite figured it out just yet?). The discussion yesterday (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123081 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123081) about how to break out of paradigms and the Paradox of Choice are closely tied together with the idea I'm working on.

robg 19y ago
See also (where I got the more descriptive phrase in the title): http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/93 http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/93 http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/0060005688 http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/006000... To me, it also ties in with embodiment theory (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123243 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=123243). We think we'd rather have the buffet, especially on first sight and with an empty stomach. But after gorging ourselves we realize we would have much rather had one really good dish than twenty mediocre ones.
- jkush 19y ago
  I agree with you. What I'm more interested in however, is who really gets to say what dishes are on the buffet? The cooks? The consumers? My gut tells me the consumers have a lot less choice than it appears.
  - robg 19y ago
    If it's your restaurant, you do! Now, if you want to stay in business better to offer a few dishes (not a buffet) that people would kill to eat delivered by cooks who love great, simple food. (And yes, we can run with this line of thought all day. Mmmmmmm, embodiment.)
    - lg 19y ago
      Ah, the Jobsian theory of restaurants.

fleaflicker 19y ago

There is a startup equivalent to destroying your retreat options (from "How not to die"): I wish every startup we funded could appear in a Newsweek article describing them as the next generation of billionaires, because then none of them would be able to give up. The success rate would be 90%. I'm not kidding.

SirWart 19y ago
I definitely tell people I'm going to be working on a startup over the summer to force myself to do it. It's a surprisingly effective method actually.

deleted 19y ago

[deleted]

prakash 19y ago

"Engage in combat fully determined to die and you will be alive; wish to survive in the battle and you will surely meet death." Uesugi Kenshin (1530—1578) Applies equally to war & startups.

mynameishere 19y ago

I'm surprised by the war analogies. Withdrawals are an essential part of military strategy.

ardit33 19y ago
It is a good analogy. During WWII the soviet red army got smashed at the beginning by the germans, and was in retread (lost a lot of men and equipment). Millions of soldiers were captured. Hitler gave the order to summary execute all commanders and communist members found in each unit. Meanwhile, Stalin, pissed at the poor performance of its army, gave order to execute all the commanders who retreated, or their units gave up to the germans. Giving up, ment certain death, retreating ment execution, so the red army commanders; from simple captains, to even generals, were left with literally one choice: Fight to their death. At the end, we all know who won the war.
- mynameishere 19y ago
  If the red army hadn't retreated initially it would have been annihilated. Again, an essential strategy.
- run4yourlives 19y ago
  That's a piss poor understanding of history. The only thing that turned the tide of the war for the Russians was winter. Stalin's kill 'em all approach had virtually no effect on the performance of his army. In fact, Hitler's fight 'til the death orders ended up being laughed at my German commanders. When you're a nazi choosing to surrender to Stalin's red army, you understand the true meaning of death.
  - ardit33 19y ago
    "That's a piss poor understanding of history. The only thing that turned the tide of the war for the Russians was winter. Stalin's kill 'em all approach had virtually no effect on the performance of his army. " First of all, your "That's a piss poor understanding of history." is a pretty crappy comment for a forum like this that wants to stay civil. I hope you choose better wording and are not like this with your friends, and colleagues. Second, attributing the defeat of nazis to weather, is trivalizing the whole history. I am not saying Stalin's orders to not surrender won the war, but it was a huge factor on the battle field, while you say it had no effect. BBC - The Battle For Russia http://joox.net/cat/44/id/1971071 http://joox.net/cat/44/id/1971071 The nazis caught almost 2 million soviet prisoners in the first part of the war. Imagine those people actually haven't given up, but fought to death, then the outnumbered nazi machine would have never reached so close to Moscow (16 miles). One of the reason, after the war, a lot of ex-soviet prisoners, were treated really bad, almost as traitors.

walter_b_marvin 19y ago

Intresting. I thought Cortez initiated this stradegy

ph0rque 19y ago

Interesting... I find that sometimes, I am relieved when my choices shrink, or put another way, some choices are made for me.

redorb 19y ago

(Wish they would open a door) free open access to the site