5 ms·

It is not a paradox but it can be irrational. When the two choices have similar utility the cost of distinguishing them is high and the benefit of making the co

It is not a paradox but it can be irrational. When the two choices have similar utility the cost of distinguishing them is high and the benefit of making the correct choice is low. There is a crossover point where it does not matter which option you choose, putting more effort into your decision can only leave you worse off, and this article claims we tend to continue putting in the effort well past that point.

changoplatanero 4y ago
A friend was spending forever trying to decide which of two toothpastes to buy at Target. The cost of avoiding calculating which is better by just buying both was only $3. In cases like that I think it's irrational to spend so much time thinking about it.
- jquery 4y ago
  A grandmaster logician descends from logic heaven to tell you it was actually rational and asks you to figure out why that it so. What is your response?
  - brian_cloutier 4y ago
    It might be one of these: A) the benefits are higher than you think: e.g. little did you know it but they have an unusual mouth microbiome which means some toothpastes will work and the rest will turn them into a wimpering ball of cavities within the week. They don't quite remember /which/ ones though and are trying to figure that out. B) the costs are lower than you think: this friend is funemployed and has nothing else they would rather be doing with their time, in fact they find a great deal of satisfaction from knowing they have "optimized" every area of their life by spending more time on their decisions.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- someweirdperson 4y ago
  Price is not only money for the purchase. Aferwards, it increases the effort of cleaning teeth, on the left using one, and on the right using the other, over the next 5 years, before making a final choice based on results at the dentist. At which point both of them will have been upgraded with different ingredients.
twblalock 4y ago
Sure, but how do you know a given decision is one of those decisions?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- quest88 4y ago
  For me it should be intuitive. My test is "Will I accept either outcome if I flip a coin?". Is so, flip the coin. If not, pick the option that prevents me from flipping a coin.
  - rileymat2 4y ago
    But the original question remains, how do you know that until you have analyzed it?
    - ryanklee 4y ago
      For certain types of decisions, one can safely rely on prior experience. I know to a high degree of certainty that most entrees at a moderate to high quality restaurant have roughly the same value, therefore choosing quickly is best because there's little to discover and little to gain from the discovery. Many aesthetic choices or choices of mere preference are like this. Other classes of issues are known in advance to be both trickier and yield real, effective outcome differences, these are often big life decisions that act as life's value centers, e.g., which house, which partner, which employer, etc. It's of course possible to be wrong in either direction -- this difference matters though i think it doesn't and vice versa -- but in general, we tend to be pretty good about taking seriously the things that really are serious, but pretty bad at not wasting time on things that don't matter much. This shows up in the paradox of choice, but really just imagine someone hemming and hawing over two brands of cereal in the aisle at Trader Joe's and you get the picture. So the practical problem isn't really "how do you know until you analyze," because we more often fall into opposite the trap and waste time systematically attempting to optimize choices where there is little value to be gained. We should step back in more cases and remind ourselves that most differences make no difference at all. Save your time and energy for the ones that do.
chii 4y ago
> this article claims we tend to continue putting in the effort well past that point. it's because people have the irrational belief that their thinking and reasoning more about a problem/decision makes their outcome better. I think the common symptom found in software is design analysis paralysis. A software team end up using tonnes of time fretting about design choices (often as a committee), rather than just use that time to implement one of the designs. The (ir)rational idea that by reasoning about the design up-front, one saves the (potential) time lost in reimplementing a different design in the future!!
- alexanderdmitri 4y ago
  > it's because people have the irrational belief that their thinking and reasoning more about a problem/decision makes their outcome better. i'm not sure this is correct. i bet it often comes down to whether we've found an [emotionally] satisfying answer/outcome.
- galaxyLogic 4y ago
  Definitely trying out different alternative designs is a good idea. But it has its cost as well. But you are right it is usually better to try out something than just ponder all the possibilities.
- Pelam 4y ago
  This! Often (actually almost always) time it self is valuable for multiple reasons. Spending precious time in the "meeting room" instead of progressing towards (almost any) implementation can decrease the overall value and increase the risks. Also some people strongly prefer action over deliberation, especially by a committee so there is also a psychological cost to the team to consider. With software and a capable team, there can still be an illusion that decisions are cast in stone and can't be changed later, while the opposite is true. Implementing a solution that is almost there and then making corrections can be both more satisfying and lead to very good results. This of course requires the psychological freedom an flexibility to quickly acknowledge errors in thinking and design and not holding on to "the plan" too tightly.
  - 4y ago
namaria 4y ago
While it may be easy to label it as irrational post hoc, it might not be clear beforehand without the expended effort in evaluation. There is no paradox, just an information asymmetry in time.
tpoacher 4y ago
I reject the hypothesis that this is a matter of irrationality. The error in this line of thinking lies with the fact that you have implicitly equated "have similar utility" with "have similar visible utility". The reason "obvious" choices are "easy" is not because of the difference in actual utility, but because of the difference in "obviousness". I.e. it relates your observation to the probability that it does indeed relate to a difference in utility of not. Therefore, two options with "similar visible utility" require more effort discerning whether the "actual" utility is also small, or you're about to make a very big mistake based on superficial notions of "no visible difference". I content that given knowledge of actual equivalence, the paradox goes away and choices become trivial again. A good example is phone contracts (at least in the UK). You'll spend far more time weighing options if they're bundled with all sorts of dark pattern magic like "first 3 months free then £X plus promo vouchers in select stores", compared to when you only have the annual price to compare between two choices. But it wouldn't matter if that price difference is £100 or £1.

changoplatanero 4y ago

A friend was spending forever trying to decide which of two toothpastes to buy at Target. The cost of avoiding calculating which is better by just buying both was only $3. In cases like that I think it's irrational to spend so much time thinking about it.

jquery 4y ago
A grandmaster logician descends from logic heaven to tell you it was actually rational and asks you to figure out why that it so. What is your response?
- brian_cloutier 4y ago
  It might be one of these: A) the benefits are higher than you think: e.g. little did you know it but they have an unusual mouth microbiome which means some toothpastes will work and the rest will turn them into a wimpering ball of cavities within the week. They don't quite remember /which/ ones though and are trying to figure that out. B) the costs are lower than you think: this friend is funemployed and has nothing else they would rather be doing with their time, in fact they find a great deal of satisfaction from knowing they have "optimized" every area of their life by spending more time on their decisions.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
someweirdperson 4y ago
Price is not only money for the purchase. Aferwards, it increases the effort of cleaning teeth, on the left using one, and on the right using the other, over the next 5 years, before making a final choice based on results at the dentist. At which point both of them will have been upgraded with different ingredients.

twblalock 4y ago

Sure, but how do you know a given decision is one of those decisions?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
quest88 4y ago
For me it should be intuitive. My test is "Will I accept either outcome if I flip a coin?". Is so, flip the coin. If not, pick the option that prevents me from flipping a coin.
- rileymat2 4y ago
  But the original question remains, how do you know that until you have analyzed it?
  - ryanklee 4y ago
    For certain types of decisions, one can safely rely on prior experience. I know to a high degree of certainty that most entrees at a moderate to high quality restaurant have roughly the same value, therefore choosing quickly is best because there's little to discover and little to gain from the discovery. Many aesthetic choices or choices of mere preference are like this. Other classes of issues are known in advance to be both trickier and yield real, effective outcome differences, these are often big life decisions that act as life's value centers, e.g., which house, which partner, which employer, etc. It's of course possible to be wrong in either direction -- this difference matters though i think it doesn't and vice versa -- but in general, we tend to be pretty good about taking seriously the things that really are serious, but pretty bad at not wasting time on things that don't matter much. This shows up in the paradox of choice, but really just imagine someone hemming and hawing over two brands of cereal in the aisle at Trader Joe's and you get the picture. So the practical problem isn't really "how do you know until you analyze," because we more often fall into opposite the trap and waste time systematically attempting to optimize choices where there is little value to be gained. We should step back in more cases and remind ourselves that most differences make no difference at all. Save your time and energy for the ones that do.

chii 4y ago

> this article claims we tend to continue putting in the effort well past that point. it's because people have the irrational belief that their thinking and reasoning more about a problem/decision makes their outcome better. I think the common symptom found in software is design analysis paralysis. A software team end up using tonnes of time fretting about design choices (often as a committee), rather than just use that time to implement one of the designs. The (ir)rational idea that by reasoning about the design up-front, one saves the (potential) time lost in reimplementing a different design in the future!!

alexanderdmitri 4y ago
> it's because people have the irrational belief that their thinking and reasoning more about a problem/decision makes their outcome better. i'm not sure this is correct. i bet it often comes down to whether we've found an [emotionally] satisfying answer/outcome.
galaxyLogic 4y ago
Definitely trying out different alternative designs is a good idea. But it has its cost as well. But you are right it is usually better to try out something than just ponder all the possibilities.
Pelam 4y ago
This! Often (actually almost always) time it self is valuable for multiple reasons. Spending precious time in the "meeting room" instead of progressing towards (almost any) implementation can decrease the overall value and increase the risks. Also some people strongly prefer action over deliberation, especially by a committee so there is also a psychological cost to the team to consider. With software and a capable team, there can still be an illusion that decisions are cast in stone and can't be changed later, while the opposite is true. Implementing a solution that is almost there and then making corrections can be both more satisfying and lead to very good results. This of course requires the psychological freedom an flexibility to quickly acknowledge errors in thinking and design and not holding on to "the plan" too tightly.
- 4y ago

namaria 4y ago

While it may be easy to label it as irrational post hoc, it might not be clear beforehand without the expended effort in evaluation. There is no paradox, just an information asymmetry in time.

tpoacher 4y ago

I reject the hypothesis that this is a matter of irrationality. The error in this line of thinking lies with the fact that you have implicitly equated "have similar utility" with "have similar visible utility". The reason "obvious" choices are "easy" is not because of the difference in actual utility, but because of the difference in "obviousness". I.e. it relates your observation to the probability that it does indeed relate to a difference in utility of not. Therefore, two options with "similar visible utility" require more effort discerning whether the "actual" utility is also small, or you're about to make a very big mistake based on superficial notions of "no visible difference". I content that given knowledge of actual equivalence, the paradox goes away and choices become trivial again. A good example is phone contracts (at least in the UK). You'll spend far more time weighing options if they're bundled with all sorts of dark pattern magic like "first 3 months free then £X plus promo vouchers in select stores", compared to when you only have the annual price to compare between two choices. But it wouldn't matter if that price difference is £100 or £1.