![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Book #1: The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less by Barry Schwartz
I'd forgotten, I had another book in progress that I finished a few days ago. This one wasn't very good. I don't know why I got it, I'd read Freakonomics shortly before that so I guess I was in the market for books that try to disguise their combination of oversimplification and "well, DUH!" common sense with pop psych babbling. This one wasn't quite as offensive as Freakonomics: whereas Freakonomics said today's lower crime rate is entirely the result of legalized abortion (because women who want to have abortions are more likely to breed criminals if they can't have an abortion), The Paradox of Choice merely says people were better off when divorce, class mobility and being gay were illegal.
Apart from the offensive crap, which stems entirely from the stupid comparisons that plague the book (too many car options causes stress when you're trying to pick a car, therefore people are better off with arranged marriages), it's a couple of obvious points, repeated over and over for 236 pages. The points are:
That's about it. The obvious culprit to me is advertisers and I don't think the author pays enough attention to their role in the push to check out all the options and make sure you get the best one. He also makes totally invalid comparisons between life choices, like choosing a job or a mate, and consumer choices, like buying a stereo. It may be true that people who buy a stereo that they can't return tend to be happier with their purchase than people who have the option of changing their minds but that doesn't mean we'd be better off if we couldn't get divorced.
I'd be happier with it if the author at least paid lip-service to the idea that we need divorce because people have to be able to get out of abusive relationships (without resorting to murder). It's true that we'd be better off if people put more thought into getting married in the first place (thank you, Britney Spears) but there still needs to be an escape route, just like any major decision can be changed if the result turns out to be nothing like what we expected.
I agreed with the central thesis of the book: consumers are presented with such a baffling array of choices that it makes it harder to make a decision and to be satisfied with the result. It could've been said in a less stupid way, though.
On an episode of AbFab, Edina gave a speech (which she had to improvise because she lost her notebook and she ended up just ranting at the assembled PR bigwigs) and in it she said "I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!" The author could've saved us all a lot of time and just written that because that's all the book says.
I give it a D.
I'd forgotten, I had another book in progress that I finished a few days ago. This one wasn't very good. I don't know why I got it, I'd read Freakonomics shortly before that so I guess I was in the market for books that try to disguise their combination of oversimplification and "well, DUH!" common sense with pop psych babbling. This one wasn't quite as offensive as Freakonomics: whereas Freakonomics said today's lower crime rate is entirely the result of legalized abortion (because women who want to have abortions are more likely to breed criminals if they can't have an abortion), The Paradox of Choice merely says people were better off when divorce, class mobility and being gay were illegal.
Apart from the offensive crap, which stems entirely from the stupid comparisons that plague the book (too many car options causes stress when you're trying to pick a car, therefore people are better off with arranged marriages), it's a couple of obvious points, repeated over and over for 236 pages. The points are:
- The more options you have, the more work you have to put into making a selection.
- Some people put a lot of pressure on themselves to choose the best thing and therefore have to look at all the options; other people are satisfied with "good enough."
- When you get a new thing that you like, it seems great at first but then you get used to having it and it doesn't seem so great any more.
That's about it. The obvious culprit to me is advertisers and I don't think the author pays enough attention to their role in the push to check out all the options and make sure you get the best one. He also makes totally invalid comparisons between life choices, like choosing a job or a mate, and consumer choices, like buying a stereo. It may be true that people who buy a stereo that they can't return tend to be happier with their purchase than people who have the option of changing their minds but that doesn't mean we'd be better off if we couldn't get divorced.
I'd be happier with it if the author at least paid lip-service to the idea that we need divorce because people have to be able to get out of abusive relationships (without resorting to murder). It's true that we'd be better off if people put more thought into getting married in the first place (thank you, Britney Spears) but there still needs to be an escape route, just like any major decision can be changed if the result turns out to be nothing like what we expected.
I agreed with the central thesis of the book: consumers are presented with such a baffling array of choices that it makes it harder to make a decision and to be satisfied with the result. It could've been said in a less stupid way, though.
On an episode of AbFab, Edina gave a speech (which she had to improvise because she lost her notebook and she ended up just ranting at the assembled PR bigwigs) and in it she said "I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!" The author could've saved us all a lot of time and just written that because that's all the book says.
I give it a D.
