The Paradox of Choice: The Advantages of Closing a Few Doors | Hacker News Reader

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

nytimes.com

54 pointsrobg23 comments

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.

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.

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) about how to break out of paradigms and the Paradox of Choice are closely tied together with the idea I'm working on.

See also (where I got the more descriptive phrase in the title): http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/93 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). 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.

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.

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.)

Ah, the Jobsian theory of restaurants.

You may be interested in The Paradox Of Choice - Why Less Is More ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6127548813950043200&... ).

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

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.

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.

"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

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.

If the red army hadn't retreated initially it would have been annihilated. Again, an essential strategy.

"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.

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

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?

Give it a try...

http://www.predictablyirrational.com/test-yourself/Doors.swf

http://www.predictablyirrational.com/?page_id=117

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

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.

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.

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

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

Intresting. I thought Cortez initiated this stradegy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com