A few weeks ago, I found myself wanting to watch some Netflix after a long day at the bar. As I have done many times before, I found myself looking through the list of shows I could watch, scrolling, and scrolling… and scrolling until I’d spent 15 minutes deciding on a show to watch, at which point I gave up and just watched Instagram reels on my phone.
But this isn’t the first time this has happened. Whenever I walk into a bookstore, I found myself overwhelmed with choice. There are so many books that look great, with interesting titles, designs and blurbs, yet I find myself walking out the bookstore empty handed.
Wherever I go, I keep getting paralyzed by the abundance of choices around me.
I was experiencing Choice Paralysis.
In essence, Choice Paralysis is the psychological phenomenon where the individual feels overwhelmed by the number of options available, leading to difficulty in making a decision.
This stems from a philosophical principle called Positive Freedom, or Positive Liberty. This principle basically means that the more choice there is, the better.
I will argue that this view is wrong, and that the endorsement of this idea by major international organizations, like the United Nations, and many corporations is causing a trickle-down of mass Choice Paralysis.
I’ll use dating apps to make my point.
A Look at Dating Apps
As a single young person, I find myself looking for more and more avenues to meet people. As an introvert, I find myself looking for avenues that don’t involve approaching randoms on the street for phone numbers.
Naturally, as most people do, I gravitated towards Online Dating apps.
If you’ve ever used a dating app, you understand there are many, many problems. The most talked about problem, is that matches are unequally distributed. Going down this road we talk about gender preferences and hypergamy. The typical stuff.
But I want to talk about the issues that those with abundant matches must face. I found that people who end up with a considerable number of matches struggle to find a partner.
In an experiment done by D’Angelo and Toma, the impact of increasing choice on dating satisfaction was measured.
“… a week after making their selection, online daters who chose from a large set of potential partners (i.e., 24) were less satisfied with their choice than those who selected from a small set (i.e., 6) and were more likely to change their selection.”
What this verifies is that simply increasing choice does not help us find partners.
This echoes my own personal experiences.
Let’s say that I choose a potential partner and go on a date. I might have a good time and enjoy myself – but I might leave thinking “I can do better”.
Now I understand this sounds callous, but let’s go through the reasoning underpinning this conclusion. I think it all comes down to uncertainty.
First, there are all these other matches that I have, that might be better than the match I have right now. This would similarly apply to matches that I might have in the future too.
If you are in this “abundancy mindset”, i.e., you are expecting many matches in the future, then the probability of finding someone better than your current match increases exponentially. Given this, the obvious choice would be to keep looking.
But all this really is, is an uncertainty bias; or taken from common wisdom: “The grass is greener on the other side”.
The more matches we get, the more opportunity you get to go on the other side and “see the grass”, but the problem is that; there will always be greener grass.
Or at least the possibility of it, and so you will always be searching.
This is my problem with Positive Freedom in general. The more choice you have, the more energy you’re going to have to expend to explore all those choices.
This takes us, bizarrely, to an important concept in machine learning.
Exploration Vs Exploitation
The Exploration-Exploitation trade-off is a key challenge in machine learning algorithms.
Exploitation refers to using the current knowledge to make the best possible decision or take the most promising action based on past experience.
Exploration refers to trying out new actions or options that haven't been chosen as much or at all. The goal is to gather more information, even if the immediate reward isn't high.
Too much exploration means the model may never fully capitalize on the best-known options, while too much exploitation can mean missing out on potentially better solutions.
In the context of Dating Apps, the “Grass is Greener” bias is the brain entering exploration mode.
This leaves the exploitation state neglected, i.e., Choice Paralysis, where no-one can choose a long-term partner.
So, what causes choice paralysis in relation to exploration-exploitation trade-offs?
1. Too Many Options
When the environment offers a vast number of possible actions, states, or strategies, it becomes difficult to evaluate which option to explore next.
2. Uncertainty
In environments where the outcomes of actions are highly uncertain or unpredictable, the agent may struggle to decide between exploring unknown options and exploiting known ones. This uncertainty can create hesitation because the risks of exploring might seem too high compared to the potential gains.
3. Loss Aversion
People or algorithms might delay making a decision because they want to avoid future losses associated with a "wrong" choice. Exploration, and Exploitation often come with risks or costs—whether in terms of time, resources, or possible failure.
Notice however, that increasing (1) the number of options can exacerbate many of the factors that lead to choice paralysis.
The more options you have, the more uncertainty you have. The more uncertainty you have, the more perceived risk of loss, the more opportunity cost.
In other words, you can’t win.
This is why optimizing Positive Freedom is doomed to be insufficient.
This is the path that we will head towards, given that Positive Freedom is a doctrine adopted by major international bodies such as The United Nations, and well accepted philosophies such as The Capabilities Approach developed by Sen and Nussbaum.
So, how can we salvage Positive Freedom?
Solving the Exploration Game
At this point in human history, we are currently in a positive sum environment. This means that we are constantly increasing the choices available to us.
Consequently, our choice landscape is in a constant state of change.
But what causes us to enter our “exploration mode” is a changing, dynamic environment.
If I live in a small village in the woods, and I see a plume of smoke in the near distance, then I am compelled to explore that area the smoke is coming from.
Another example: If I have a certain number of villagers, and suddenly we have a new person join our tribe, I am compelled to “explore” this new person. Are they a threat, or a friend? Can I get along with them? Where did they come from? Why are they here? Etc.
The number one thing causing choice paralysis, is that our environment is too dynamic.
1. Problem: Dynamic Environments
If the bookstore didn’t change its books every month, I might be inclined to explore the set of books that are already there.
If I didn’t constantly get new matches on Hinge, I might be more inclined to go on dates and have more quality interactions with my existing matches.
Similarly, the case with my Netflix library.
2. Problem: Large Choice Pool
If my bookstore had maybe five books per genre, I would be able to choose which book to read with ease. In fact, I would probably want to read all five books. The bookstore would make more money off me in this case.
If Hinge only let you have one match at a time, I bet I would have a more meaningful experience on the app.
In the areas where we see Choice Paralysis, we need to reduce the choices available to the agent.1 In this sense, I mean the psychological burden of making a decision.
Conclusions
While Positive Freedom advocates for increased options to improve personal liberty, this abundance often leads to indecision, dissatisfaction, and never-ending exploration.
The “grass is greener” mindset, driven by uncertainty and loss-aversion, prevents individuals from committing to a single option.
Now, don’t get me wrong, Positive freedom is still important, necessary even. But it isn’t sufficient.
We must stop fetishizing choice. This applies at the commonsense level, but also at the policy level.
Just some food for thought.
Reclaiming Wisdom
A small digression: This makes me think about the dissolving of traditions. When I described having one match at a time, that’s marriage, and even arranged marriages.
What traditions are we threatening to discard that might serve useful functions?
Positive freedom has it's drawbacks, but it's probably the best approach out there as far as maximizing utility goes. The most obvious alternative is to focus on negative freedoms, but then you end up with the Life Goals of Dead People as described by Ozy Brennan.
Alternatively, what it sounds like you are proposing is some sort of paternalistic trad position, deemphasizing freedom entirely. This feels like a radical overreaction to freedom not working perfectly in one single case, especially given there are methods like the 37% rule and upcoming technologies like AI matchmakers which could alleviate these problems.
In general, I'm pretty skeptical of propositions which say we need to start doing things from a "societal" or "policy" level, which is really a sort of planning model of culture, versus freedom models which are market driven. If your method is so good, you can just communicate it to individuals and they will use their freedoms to choose it themselves.