The Axiom of Choice

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you being deliberately obtuse again, just so you don't have to concede a simple point, again? The market limits choices to those actually chosen by consumers. There are certainly more choices now that ever before (thanks capitalism!), but that does not mean that the market does not limit choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

in other words, some people free ride off those who make economic decisions because their choices end up limiting the successful and, therefore, existential firms in each industry.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it your contention that somehow government should forceably reduce the number of consumer choices? And if not, WTF is the purpose of this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

im glad this has been said clearly now.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Find me one single place where I said people should make your decisions for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, you got me. All you've done is said that people are too dumb to know what they want, and then you got into some arguments with people who agreed, with the caveat that this doesn't mean anyone else is smarter in that regard.

So:

You: I claim X.
Other: I agree with claim X, and note further claim Y.
You. (combative equivocation, verbal cornucopia, a big clound of dust)

So if you agree on X, and don't disagree with Y, what are you doing? What other conclusion can we draw?

Perhaps you need to work on getting your point across.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you being deliberately obtuse again

...

Is it your contention that somehow government should forceably reduce the number of consumer choices? And if not, WTF is the purpose of this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

MY PONY TOO SLOW

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
There are certainly more choices now that ever before (thanks capitalism!), but that does not mean that the market does not limit choices

[/ QUOTE ] If you had watched the video, you would understand that what is relevant here is the total number of choices people have. The fact that the market limits choices under the definition of "limiting choices" that you are using here is utterly irrelevant.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of lowering your expectations (come on, THAT'S the secret to happiness?!?!?!?!), just spend some time appreciating what you have rather than obsessing on what you don't have and this ceases to be a problem. ANYONE CAN DO THIS

[/ QUOTE ] Strongly disagree. People are NOT built to "maximize" there own individual happiness, but have been built by evolution to increase the fitness of their genes. Not just anyone can do what you are saying; many if not most people have been shaped by millions of years of evolution to not only not do what you are saying everyone can do here, but in fact to do the precise opposite of it.

Obsessing about what one doesn't have and about whether one has made the best decision or not has driven the race for scarce resources and relative status for thousands and thousands of years.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are certainly more choices now that ever before (thanks capitalism!), but that does not mean that the market does not limit choices

[/ QUOTE ] If you had watched the video, you would understand that what is relevant here is the total number of choices people have. The fact that the market limits choices under the definition of "limiting choices" that you are using here is utterly irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The market limits the total number of choices to those things that people actually choose.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
you would understand that what is relevant here is the total number of choices people have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Related challenge...

I wonder if anyone here could, on the spot, name any good or service and then write the total number of choices he or she has for that good or service.

No monopolies, and no looking it up.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of lowering your expectations (come on, THAT'S the secret to happiness?!?!?!?!), just spend some time appreciating what you have rather than obsessing on what you don't have and this ceases to be a problem. ANYONE CAN DO THIS

[/ QUOTE ] Strongly disagree. People are NOT built to "maximize" there own individual happiness, but have been built by evolution to increase the fitness of their genes. Not just anyone can do what you are saying; many if not most people have been shaped by millions of years of evolution to not only not do what you are saying everyone can do here, but in fact to do the precise opposite of it.

Obsessing about what one doesn't have and about whether one has made the best decision or not has driven the race for scarce resources and relative status for thousands and thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Dan Gilbert lecture suggests differently. He actually says that "We are chasing the very commodity that we have the ability to manufacture within ourselves."

I don't feel particularly persuaded by scientific arguments that tell me I can't manufacture my own happiness because I can. I do. I do it a lot, and it works out very well for me. All you have to do is take five minutes to sit down, put on some relaxing/inspiring music, think about all the things you do have, think about all the things you're capable of doing in your upcoming years, and it changes your mood. There are no negative externalities, and no one is made poorer by it. It's not that hard to do.

The cool thing about these findings is that understanding the mechanics of happiness makes it much easier to execute it.

Also, I believe that happiness is actually quite essential to our gene fitness. Look at the character traits that are desired in mates: confidence, ambition, motivation. Being happy is extremely essential to cultivating these traits and being productive.

[hmkpoker]

I will also point out that businesses are not alien to the idea that Barry Schwartz is talking about. They spend a lot of money getting crackpot psychologists just like him to figure out what will make people want their product. It's called marketing.

Sometimes consumers are happier with less choice, but sometimes they want more. For example, if I buy a car (something I don't understand particularly well), I will test drive a handful of models and say "that one." I spend very little time fussing over the details. If I buy a computer on the other hand, I want to know every nook and cranny of every piece I'm buying. I want to analyze all the motherboards, processors, and hard drives on the market and build my computer. I did this a few years ago, and I was very proud of my purchase. I'm sure that if I felt the same way about cars, I could have busted my butt to customize a car in a similar fashion. But I didn't, so I went with a simple choice.

The point is that there are different markets within markets. There are computers for casual, tech-dumb bozos and computers for geeks. A casual user will go to an electronics store, talk to a salesperson, and select from a handful of main display computers. A very knowledgeable user will buy a computer like the stereo buyer in Schwartz's lecture.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Is it your contention that somehow government should forceably reduce the number of consumer choices? And if not, WTF is the purpose of this thread?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is not my contention. Honestly the fact that you are still asking this just makes me really sad.

edit: My point is that perhaps people should wake up to this reality, realize that producing more and more "useful" and "helpful" consumer products isn't always "useful" or "helpful" at all.