Monthly Archives: April 2010

Choice Paradox

Now and then an author writes about something that starts off being counter-intuitive.  Barry Schwartz wrote the book, “The Paradox of Choice”, to address the misconceptions about the process of making a decision.  In most modern societies, it is perceived that having more choice is always better.  According to the book, the opposite is true.  There are quite a few reasons why.  ”More choice” is a mantra that has been such a part of democracy and free markets that it will continue to be hard to see the wisdom of less choice.

Barry Schwartz starts his book by talking about all the choices available in a supermarket.  It is quite illustrative to hear about how many different items exist within specific categories.  Why is it necessary to have 200+ types of crackers?  The theory is that the consumer needs more choice to be happy with their selections.  The problem comes from not knowing which one to get.  Any kind of attempt to find the perfect cracker is doomed to fail given the widespread variety.  If a customer thinks that they are going to make the right choice if they invest more time is that much more unlikely to think that they have made the wrong choice since they have not tried all the alternatives.  Buyer’s regret (at some level) is bound to follow.  Even if the cracker is what they first wanted, they will be thinking that there is probably something better out there.

If there were only a few crackers available (like in a convenience store) it is much more likely that the choice will be fast and acceptable.  The buyer will still think that perhaps it would be better to have more choice but at least the lack of choice has made the selection process less stressful.

The assumption is that freedom equals choice.  Whereas this is true if there is no choice, it actually causes problems if the choice range grows too large.  Too much choice leads to paralysis (lack of action) and potential unhappiness.  If the choices are too close in nature and there are too many items to compare, the consumer is bound to react badly and not make any choice at all.  It is common for consumers to want the best product at the best price.  Unfortunately, this attempt to maximum the transaction comes at a high price in time and satisfaction.  It takes a great deal of time to compare potentially hundreds of items.  Also, at the end, the buyer is bound to think that one of the other choices should have been made.

In simple terms, people are only able to comprehend so many things at once.    It is estimated that people can only hold at most nine things in their short term memory.  This means, in general, once the number of things grows beyond nine, it is very difficult to process them.  Without the capacity to process more than a few items, it causes us to overload our capacity to find the right answer.    If anything, we need to filter out input to be able to see what we are really interested in.  Unfortunately, it is difficult to know what to filter as well.

Brian writes about how there are two types of people when it comes to choice.  One type of person will determine what they want ahead of time and use their criteria to analyze the decisions.  This can be categories as people that want something “good enough” for their use.  The second type of person wants the perfect solution.  They tend to spend much time comparing products and always doubt that they have seen the best.  In the pursuit for perfection, there is no perfect answer.  Tomorrow might bring a better answer and they will regret their choice almost as soon as they commit.

It the the second type of person (perfectionist or maximizer) that is going to be the most unhappy with their choices.  Regardless of how much time they spend on determining their best choice, they will typically find only disenchantment.  In the worst cases, it even leads to depression.  Because they are always seeking the best, they also are never satisfied with where they are.  The best is an idea that is always transient and heavily based on current state of mind.

Barry also asks the question about choices related to work.  In his TED video from 2005, he explains that modern technology has made it possible to work from anywhere.  So, the question becomes for the worker whether or not they should be working now.  That kind of decision causes stress for the people trying to maximize their careers.  They feel compelled to work beyond the boundaries of the workplace.  However, even when they are compelled to work, they still feel the pressure to have a family or private life.  Given that work is no longer location based, it makes it hard to restrict the choice about how the time is spent.  Citrix is one of the companies that makes it easy to work from anywhere.  Obviously mobile phones have a much larger impact on the ability to do work.  Having a laptop or similar device also plays a part.

So, when someone says that they want it all, they are really saying they want maximum everything.  The chance for happiness goes down considerably.  The reason why is fairly simple.  The person is always going to doubt their decisions.  This doubt will tend to create bad decisions that will lead to a downward spiral.  It is hard to walk the tight rope and be only focused on the end result.  You need to know where you are with the realization that your current self needs to focus not on what is to come but rather deal with the simple decisions that are happening right now.

It is ancient wisdom to understand that things should be caught when they are small.

Deciding is what our brains are built for.  Each decision leads to our specific future.  Our fear is that unless we spend more time deciding, we will have an unhappy future.  The truth is often that the best future for us cannot be foreseen from current choices.  Instead, the ego frets over different paths being completely blind to the option that makes the most sense.

In the movie, “The Matrix” there is a great deal of debate about what choice really is.  During one of the discussions, the Oracle proclaims that we can only see the through the choices that we understand.  Essentially understanding implies acceptance.  In other words, the ability to see your future is directly tied to the ability to accept what happens from your choices.  The movie takes it a step further and suggests that there is no such thing as choice (it is an illusion) and that the reliving of the choices is only for the sake of understanding.  How twisted is that?  Of course, this all fictional with roots in philosophy.  Challenges come from many sides and the results make us stronger people.

Within the business world, choices are made constantly.  As companies grow and influence increases, so does the cost of decisions that are made.  Eventually, the company will get to the stage where it stands to lose more than it gains from making aggressive choices.  This state leads to stagnation and even decline.  This model is true of nation-states as well.  Keeping in mind that technology is making it easier to generate “what-if” choices, this only increases the complexity of the environment.  Companies and countries that avoid risk will be paralyzed by choice.  Smaller companies have less to lose and have less options as well due to lack of money.  They do more with less and if they are successful, they will eventually replace those at the top.

Are rich people happy?  Well, they obviously can be.  As a whole, however, being able to have more choices (which can correspond to having more money) only leads to frustration.  Regardless of the expertise of the rich person, they are eventually going to run into choices outside their area.  Because of this, they would need to hire people to advise them and this means that there must be some kind of trust.

Which brings us to the last topic.  The choice to trust is probably the most important choice of all.  Without trust, we are islands in the deep ocean.  We decided not to choose because we do not have enough faith in either our own judgment or the judgment of others.  We sit stranded.  We are not going anywhere and as long as there are no bridges of trust, it will most likely remain that way.  It is easy to postpone an important decision simply because the damage is not obvious.  What we don’t know is that by not changing course we have already hit the iceberg.

The key to happiness is to accept the idea of “good enough”.  Instead of trying to find the perfect match, it is best to accept what you originally wanted.  Do not continue to think that there is something else better out there.  Perhaps there is.  That is not the point.  The main point is that if you always think that you can do better, you never will.  And, more importantly, if you accept the situation you are currently in, you are more likely to make choices that you understand and will bring you to the future you are meant to live (even if the ego does not agree).

Distant Bonds

There is a trend emerging from people using communications technology.  No longer are things limited to the realm of small areas, it is now possible to broadcast information to the world quickly.  The web has the ability for other people to tell us what is going on as well as share our information with them.

One thing I have noticed is how much people use mobile phones.  This has been most obvious when there is a need to wait for some event to happen.  For example, it is common for people to communicate to friends and family while waiting to board a plane.  This is not really odd given the nature of being potentially lonely or bored.  However, it does seem that people treat the mobile phones as a link to someone just to make the time pass faster.  All it takes is the realization that there is quiet time to potentially bring the need to call someone.

Mentally, the person forming this link is no longer fully focused on wherever they are.  They are distracted by the conversation and can find it annoying to be interrupted by events happening locally.  The observation is that people that do this have stopped any potential interaction with the things around them.

It is like they have created their own personal cocoon  and only bring in people they trust into their world.  Perhaps this is not much different from before.  Perhaps it is just more likely to be able to see this private life in public.

Where could this go?  Where does this lead?

It seems it will always be true that we want certain people to be with us.  Even if those people cannot physically be there, we will always find comfort in being with those we can be ourselves with.  This kind personal contact without the physical presence will always be something we, as humans, want.  Mobile phones seem to be the direct proof of that.

Ideally, we want a link to be active whenever it is desired and we also want it to be as realistic in nature as possible.  The technology simply is not there yet.

Imagining what could be possible leads to the idea of segmented worlds.  In other words, the mind could be fooled to perceive senses that are actually not in the real world.  Researchers are working hard to discover technologies that will lead to this kind of reality modification.  Recently there were investigations into using ultrasound to trigger changes in the mind.  Current research is focused on helping to cure diseases and conditions but ultimately will lead to new branches of brain research.

Given that the mind will be better understood in the future and that technology will be advanced as well, it would be possible to create a device that could be worn (maybe glasses) that would end up being effectively a mind interface.  Once there, it would be possible to link directly to other mind interfaces of friends and family.  Of course the interface would be protected and would mostly focus on the senses.  The idea is to create the link such that the mind interface will supplement the senses and make it seem that the other person is actually there.  This could also imply that the local reality could be largely removed by overlaying images from afar.  Or, even more interesting, the two environments could be cleverly merged.

Just then I was imaging being at the airport.  If my family was around me, it could seem that they are actually there with the local furniture.   Perhaps the key is to choose which setting to share.   And, of course there would be some complications.  Maybe more realistically things would happen just in the mind with no outside actions.  This would be more like a dream.  So, in the easiest model, you share a dream with others.  There would be no need to worry about moving around.

This is sounding more and more like the idea from the “Matrix”.

What are the social implications?  How plausible is it that we prefer to dream than live in reality?

Well, most likely we would not want to do full “dreaming” in public.  It is hard to believe that we would leave ourselves vulnerable in places like an airport.  Tension usually comes from being alert.  Being unaware means being relaxed but also potentially unable to respond to any changes.  It would seem that there would be degrees of intensity of the link.  Like a sliding scale, our sense of being somewhere else would differ based on our need of being locally aware.

A much more likely event in the near future is the ability to reduce the size of audio-based communication.  Eventually the devices will be transparent.  They will also be an always-on capable devices.  Instead of focusing on the potential of calling anyone in the world, it will be more interested in links.  From these set of links, you can choose to have ones active as much as you like.  From a family point of view, this would allow for constant and instant communication with anyone family member with nothing needed except for being able to call out their name.

Personally it would be very useful for me given that it is harder to hear than it used to be.  More importantly, the instant link means that it helps to create the illusion that that person is right there near you.

Put another way, you do not dial number to talk to someone in the next room.  Why should it be necessary today to store numbers for people that you know well?  Should not the technology hide any complexity and make it like a real personal communication?

Since starting this post I have been debating about where it is good or bad to focus on distant bonds.  My initial impression is that it is bad for people to ignore their local environments.  This has been true enough that mobile phones are often banned from things like driving.  In many ways it just seems rude to have people ignoring what it going around them.

However, it also seems true that people are sharing more time together over these links than what would have been possible before.  In theory, family and friends would be able to be together more with potentially more enriched relationships as well.  Perhaps the links would be stronger for friends than family.

Thinking abstractly, Citrix is in the business of bringing information and people together regardless of location or device.  As a company, it is only recently that Citrix has explored the social web aspect of business.  Even then, the ventures are fairly limited and do not fully explore this potential.  As usual, it is not always obvious that Citrix should consider entering this field.  However, the idea of “distant bonds” could easily apply to business as well.  Given the massive popularity of Blackberry and overall instant email access, it is clear that if  you want to get ahead you need better connections with faster quality response means.  It is common for managers to monitor email constantly via their iPhones.  Being instantly informed and being able to respond comes at a price.  The line between private and work life is blurred to the point of being erased.

Maybe if the links were better managed it would need lead to such grief.  Or maybe this is just the cost of success.  Regardless, the need for better consistent connections is obvious. This is true either between the people that we care about in both the personal and business spaces.

It seems that the investment in creating a more natural way to communicate over great distances would be appealing to all.  The ultimate question is how to do with this with no external devices at all.  Last night, an idea resurfaced.  One of the biggest problems is battery life.  If your battery dies, there is no way out.  The science fiction idea that came forward is that given that we have a “brain interface” and that most likely it will be a fairly low power device, it will also be able to take energy the same way the body does.  This idea could go a bit further to allow for the possibility of burning energy for connected devices as well.  Certainly science fiction.  However, people are actually looking into this.  Check out this terse Wikipedia article.

In closing, there are lots of things coming on the horizon.  As expected, they bring new possibilities but do not necessarily make things better.

It becomes more important to be somewhere else.  As time goes by, it becomes easier to focus on something outside the local realm.  Technology has progressed far enough that our desire to be connected to others can be simple and fast.  This adoption of new technology will be widespread.