The Paradox of Choice - How We Choose (Entry II)

As mentioned previously, consumers today are provided with more and more varieties of goods and services. As a result, making a satisfying decision can be tricky and time consuming, to say the least. With advertisements everywhere, consumers are oftentimes exposed to misleading statistics that could persuade them to make poor choices.

Barry Schwartz mentions a major factor that can dissuade decision makers from making a satisfying choice—the availability heuristic. Psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky reported this discovery and stated that people have a tendency to give undue weight to some types of information. The availability heuristic says that people logically assume that the more available something is to their memory, the more frequently we have encountered it in the past. However, this is only partly true because salience, or a memory’s vividness, also matters greatly (Schwartz 58).

Schwartz gives the following example: a consumer is seeking to purchase a safe and reliable car. He dutifully checks Consumer Reports, a trustworthy source, and discovers that Volvos are ranked highest for safety and reliability. Later, however, a friend gives an emotional, vivid account of how the Volvo she bought six months ago gave her nothing but trouble. Since most people give undue but substantial weight to these types of salient, anecdotal “evidence,” the positive ranking from the Consumer Reports may be cancelled out. Thus, that consumer may be dissuaded from purchasing a Volvo.

Going back to the Nisbett article on holistic versus analytic perception, I have realized that Westerners could be dramatically different decision makers than Asians. Since Westerners generally tend to focus on a salient aspect, independent of its context, they may be more liable to give more undue weight to vivid, personal accounts. On the other hand, because Asians tend to have a more holistic perception, they may weigh such salient accounts much less in their decision making. By relying more on facts and less on arbitrary, individual cases, decision makers would be more likely to gain greater utility from their choices.

"The Paradox of Choice" - Our Choices (Entry I)

Barry Schwartz in his Ted Talks presentation highlighted the “official dogma of all Western industrial societies,” which is to maximize the welfare of citizens by maximizing individual freedom. Accordingly, he stated that the widely embraced way “to maximize freedom is to maximize choice—the more choices people have, the more freedom they have; [and] the more freedom they have, the more welfare they have.” Having first listened to him in ToK class a couple months ago, I have increasingly begun to realize the vast number of choices and decisions we face in our everyday lives.

Schwartz pointed out in the Paradox of Choice that a short walk down his supermarket’s snack section would yield 85 varieties of crackers and 285 varieties of cookies, excluding 20 different types of Goldfish. However, for the average middle-class consumer who seeks to economically maximize the utility of his decision, locating the "perfect" package of cookies could a time-consuming task. Further, the emotional residue of the next best alternative would linger in the consumer’s mind, especially if the type of cookie he purchased was only mediocre. Even if the cookie was entirely satisfactory, he may wonder how the other 284 varieties may have tasted, which would diminish the utility of any cookie consumption.

On an even more practical note, let’s analyze the summer ToK book selection process. Looking over the language of the assignment, there were, “in no particular order,” 16 suggested books. However, “by no means [were students] restricted to this list” as they were “merely suggestions.” As a result, we were also open to choose from the hundreds, perhaps thousands of books that would qualify as acceptable ToK readings. From a glance at the assignment, most students would probably think it would be effortless to come up with an acceptable book. Considering this logically, however, so many readily available choices would hamper our efforts. When we went to the Amazon page to copy the link of our book selection, the website provided us the “Customers Who Viewed This Item Also Viewed” section. As motivated students, we would feel obliged, or at least tempted, to compare other possible selections and ensure that we have the "perfect" book to analyze. As a result, Amazon could constantly generate an endless number of book options for us to view.

Certainly, choices are not consequence free. While a handful of choices may enhance our satisfaction, too many choices would detract from the effectiveness of our decision. This predicament along with the difficulties of choosing will be discussed in my next entry.

Who are you?

Based on the first theory in the “personal identity” chapter, the physical continuity theory, I am the same person as I was since birth if my body existed continuously from then until now. With this, however, our intangible assets and memories are overlooked. Clearly, there must be more to me than just my physical attributes. According to the same-soul theory of identity, what makes me me is my soul. For me, this theory appeals more. The example of the car parts being replaced, the car being taken apart completely, and the car being put together reminds me of my own body and identity. As my physically grow, my body changes like the car with parts being replaced. On a smaller scale, my baby tooth were replaced by adult teeth and, on a larger scale, my skeletal structure changed drastically with age and continues to do so. This convinces me that the personal identity theory is fallible. Eventually, our physical appearance would be almost unrecognizable. Thus, looking at the physiological continuity theory, which states that what makes me me are my psychological characteristics, I believe that my mind primarily defines me as a person.

Recalling back to middle school, I blindly supported the Democratic Party, mainly the Democratic Presidential Candidates (Clinton at the time). I really did not know why, but it may have been the perception that Chinese people always go blue. Really, the root of my initial political belief is unknown. I discarded that it was my family’s political beliefs since my younger sister who is 10 years old really likes President Bush because he is the President. Since the first day hearing her say this, I have fervently told her to root for Democrat. Hopefully, I will present her a case with reasoning. Nonetheless, my reasons for my personal political belief when I was younger have changed.

Today, however, I support most Democrats with reason and a clear perception. I try to gain all the information available and truly understand platforms and issues before making a political decision. I put aside fundamental biases as best as I can and reject unsupported slanders to arrive to a final conclusion. This conclusion tends to be in favor of Democrats, thus forming my political belief today. In relation to most issues, I cannot see myself calling myself something other than a Democrat. Perhaps, a few years from now, I may register a Republican (forbid that day). Or, maybe I will be a lifelong Democrat.

Finally, I just want to quickly note and inject another confusing point that political parties change. A few years from now, the Republican Party may become more liberal and shift in their platforms (like in the 1960’s). Should Giuliani by nominated to run for President, we may see the identity of the Republican Party change. Along with that, we may shift parties. Intrinsically, would we a change in our own identity, given that our beliefs do not change but party association does?

Blog Assignment #4 - Edge Question

Bruce Sterling: http://edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html#sterling
Leonard Susskind: http://edge.org/q2005/q05_8.html#susskind

Bruce Sterling’s five-word response to the 2005 question was, “we’re in for climatic mayhem.” Without too much guessing, Mr. Sterling, author of Globalhead, is referring to the adverse effects of global warming and potentially disastrous climate changes in the future. He states that his prediction is part of his intuition, which is probably based on his factual reasoning. Perhaps, his statement conceals a deep sense of sarcasm, insinuating how those ignorant (which includes President Bush) of global warming constantly deny that the current climate change is a benign natural cycle. The undeniable “truth” Mr. Sterling is referring to is that anthropogenic warming and raising temperature levels are clearly evident and will lead to mayhem and destruction in the future, again contrary to the belief of “nonbelievers.” Although climate change requires immense volumes of data collection over long periods of time recently, scientists, some who have been pressured by the Bush Administration to downplay their findings, revealed that global climate change have been induced by humans and pose a danger to the world’s welfare. Mr. Sterling’s claim is most probably correct and maybe we are in for a ride.

Another intensely interesting response is a dialogue about probability theory created by Leonard Susskind, which is extremely logical and reason-based. In this dialogue, a “slow student” questions his professor about the facts in his own coil flip experiment. At several instances, he reaches the conclusion that the number of heads and number of tails will adhere to the calculated margin of error, especially if given a “large” number of enough flips. To his confusion and dismay, Dr. Susskind responses with only “probablies.” Having taken a college course on decision theory, I find that this conversation is quite fascinating. According to the law of large numbers, the percentage difference between heads and tails will become smaller and smaller as the number of flips increase. Eventually, given enough flips the percentage difference between heads and tails become absolutely tiny. However, there is still that margin of error, which the professor stated, and, of course, there is also no certain guarantee that the percentage of heads and tails will be about 50-50. Yet, based on probability theory and statistical mechanics, the percentage of heads and tails should be near equal as the professor stated. When the professor says that he would be “surprised” if it were not the case, I interpret it as the professor would be expecting that the law of large numbers is intact. In the end of the dialogue, Dr. Susskind writes, “If I were to flip a coin a million times I'd be damn sure I wasn't going to get all heads…I'd be so sure that I'd bet my life or my soul…I'm absolutely certain the laws of large numbers—probability theory—will work and protect me. All of science is based on it.” Without a doubt I agree that the chances of flipping a coin a million over one trial is near impossible (and with good reason), as getting all heads when the coin is flipped one million times is 1 to 2 raised to the millionth power. Maybe after the 2^1,000,000 trial, which means you would have to flip the coin 1,000,000 X 2^1,000,000 times, you may have succeed in obtaining all heads just once—not good odds to bet on…

My Unproven Truth: We have preconceptions of everyone we as soon as that person—a stranger—enter into our perception, and thus we subconsciously make judgments before we even make verbal communication with other people. Furthermore, I believe that we associate that stranger based on the past appearances of acquaintances who radiate a similar appearance and style. Physically, we create ingrained biased perceptions and immediately form emotions about that stranger, who we never have interacted before, as a result. The constant frequency of perception that instantaneously triggers our emotions layers into the fat of prejudice. Most times, it is difficult to push against and change our emotion on what we reason as our "core" beliefs, which drives that formation of the first impression. Yet, although difficult, our prejudices can be conquered through cultural interaction and willed acceptance (in other words, compelled, whether by thyself or by others). Through further reasoning, delving deep into the mind, willingly shaping the subconscious, and gaining more life experiences, we hold the power to alter our emotional responses when we see people and have the ability to genuinely adapt a new, positive attitude and language during these situations.

TedTalks - Barry Schwartz

This guy is my decision making hero: http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=b_schwartz.

Steven Levitt makes the analogy of gangs to economics: http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=s_levitt. Great parallels...

Blog Assignment #3 - Emotion and Responsibility

I believe that we have conscious control and thus hold responsibility for all of our emotions. In accordance with Robert Solomon’s argument in “Emotion Happen to Us,” emotions are the true to our own feelings and are created by our own thoughts.

Not too long ago, Jim Webb was elected as the Democratic Senator from Virginia. His unexpected victory can be attributed to an outburst of emotion from his Republican opponent George Allen. Shortly after his introduction that he was going to run a positive campaign, Allen refers to an Indian boy, “over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He’s with my opponent. He’s following us around everywhere.” Allen used this racial slur to degrade the boy working for Webb and imply that he was black. While Allen shortly apologized for his “accidental remark” and claimed that he did not even know meaning of the word that came out of his mouth, the American people did not buy it—and justifiably so. Not only was the racial slur caught on public television, but it also can from a beloved man who was running for reelection. As Solomon wrote, “most significant emotions are not single episodes, much less ‘bursts’ of affect. They are processes over time.” I think this quote flawlessly describes what happened on the day that Allen will have nightmares of for the rest of his life. His usage of this powerful word, which marked his downfall, was certainly no mere coincidence. This reflected the character of Allen; whether or not it was the way he wanted to be perceived. This “random outburst,” as Allen would later claim, was most probably built upon a foundation of racism that is deeply ingrained in his thoughts. Sure there was hatred in him towards the tracker of his campaign and for Jim Webb, but the highly improper emotional response from Allen cost him his reelection as Senator and possibly his future Presidency. As such, Allen now has to take responsibility for it and assume costs. Thanks to Allen the whole nation knows what macaca means and the racist that he is (although I must admit I felt really badly for him.)

In my personal life, my emotions also act as a way of knowing. I can vividly recall the last time I was in Beijing, China, in the summer of 2005. As with almost every summer before it, my mom, sister, and I would rent an apartment near my aunt, uncle, and cousin for the duration of our vacation. Always very attached to my aunt and uncle in China, we experienced the great times at many tourism sites, shopping malls, and, of course, restaurants. However, as always, near the end of August, we would return to the United States. The thought of leaving, starting on the day that I arrived in Beijing, would rage in my mind as I began the count down to the last day of my stay. While some people would just denounce this as childish worrying or an inability to enjoy the goods times, it’s something much more. I would continue to have fun but my emotions of sadness would build up day by day. On the long ride to the airport, I would feel the emotion of sadness burst out. While this emotion has always seemed to like an uncontrollable instance, I now realize that it is in fact a build up of not a single episode but built on the years of love and many great experiences layered together. The nostalgia was worked up in my mind as I thought that of the fact that I won’t be able to see my aunt and uncle for at least one more year. These thoughts were consciously created by my own mind, generating my powerful emotional response.

Emotions are not just random bursts of passion, but they are chosen by our own mood and conscious mind. For this reason, we should always be true to our own feelings and assume the responsibility for our emotions.

Blog Assignment #2 - Rhetoric: Logos, Pathos, Ethos

On August 12, 2004, when form Governor Jim McGreevy announced that he was in fact a closet gay American and had an affair with another man, New Jersey was the height of its scandals. Since then, New Jersey politicians have even fought harder to eliminate the scandals of New Jersey politics and combat corruption.

While it’s been two months since Senator Menendez’s victory in New Jersey, some of the slandering still clings on. To me, recent campaigns to ending corruption, pay-to-play politics, and unethical actions could not have been more pronounced than in Tom Kean Jr.’s bombardment of negative campaign rhetoric during his senatorial race against Senator Menendez. Plagued with ethical charges by the Republican Ethics Committee, Menendez faced a lot of smear ads. One of the most notorious ads was one in which Senator Menendez is portrayed as a corrupt, political boss who had one of “his top lieutenants pressuring a doctor in a kick-back scheme.”

In the very opening of this 30-second political ad, Senator Menendez is portrayed in a still picture under a shade of red light, evoking a very gloomy feeling by appealing to the viewer’s pathos. Within seconds, a very unclear audio recording is played where supposedly a top aide confessed that Menendez asked him to take part in a kick-back scheme, where it is repeated three times. This ad hammers into the viewer a sense that Menendez is a dishonest, immoral politician to evoke an emotional response and sway the vote away from him. Also, the ad appeals to the viewer’s logos by inducing a rationale response, forcing the viewer to question Menendez’s abilities as a just, honorable Senator. Throughout the accusations, the ad states that the “audio tape [was] obtained by the Philadelphia Inquirer,” giving the ad credibility and evoking the viewer’s ethos by stating that the garbled audio came from a well recognized newspaper.

Finally, the end of this political ad, like most other political ads, has its candidate approving the “message.” Here, Kean Jr. appears to be a very honest and respectful person, contrary to the picture of Menendez in the ad, giving acting as a final reinforcement to the viewer that Kean is the right candidate. Moreover, the calmness of his voice and stature further evokes the viewer’s ethos. In addition, the highly conspicuous sign, “STOP Corruption” in the background subtlety stirs to the viewer’s logos and pathos by suggesting a new, reformed path for New Jersey and America with Kean as the ethical, able Senator.

However, New Jersey voters, who are mostly Democrats, did not buy Kean Jr.’s smear ads, such as this, and rejected his tactics of barraging and smearing. While these ads may have had temporary effects, in the end, Senator Bob Menendez won with an 8% margin.

As you could probably tell the language used in this blog, I am a proud Democrat. I would like to end this by saying that it’s a good thing for New Jerseyans that we can refrain from adding another dirty four letter word to our daily language than the ones we know already, like BUSH, RICE…you know the rest. (Courtesy to NJDSC Chairman Joseph Cryan)

Please feel free to open the links the topic, “Rhetoric,” to see some other gruesome and emotionally provocative ads.