A proud member of the reality-based community
This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit here. Sunday, April 04, 2004 One feature of Blogger that I really like is the ability to create a draft, something you can work on over time while still being able to post other remarks. This particular draft is seeing the light of day after having resided in my drafts section for something over a month. I've always been more interested in why people believe as they do than in the philosophies themselves, fascinated with the meta-beliefs and fairly jaundiced about the social and political environment itself (hence "Life as a Spectator Sport"). It took the theft of the 2000 presidential election to wake me up to reality. I sat glued to the television, and pored over news articles, for two months, saying in disbelief, "But this is the United States of America! This just can't happen here!" In spite of my loss of political innocence, however, I'm still intrigued with the reasons behind people's beliefs. What prompts this person to filter the facts through one kind of logical sieve, and that person to choose a different one? I've tried and discarded a dozen theories, and found glaring exceptions to each one. An article in this month's Scientific American, The Tyranny of Choice, sheds some light, though it may raise more questions than it answers. The author, Barry Schwartz, asked why a multiplicity of choices in every arena of life has turned out not to be the key to happiness that it was once assumed to be. Schwartz said:Along with several colleagues, I have recently conducted research that offers insight into why many people end up unhappy rather than pleased when their options expand. We began by making a distinction between "maximizers" (those who always aim to make the best possible choice) and "satisficers" (those who aim for "good enough," whether or not better selections might be out there). We borrowed the term "satisficers" from the late Nobel Prize—winning psychologist and economist Herbert A. Simon of Carnegie Mellon University.Schwartz says, "When satisficers find an item that meets their standards, they stop looking. But maximizers exert enormous effort reading labels, checking out consumer magazines and trying new products." He adds, " . . . no one can check out every option,, but maximizers strive toward that goal, and so making a decision becomes increasingly daunting as the number of choices rises. Worse, after making a selection, they are nagged by the alternatives they have not had time to investigate. . . . When reality requires maximizers to compromise—to end a search and decide on something—apprehension about what might have been takes over." He adds, "When you have no options, what can you do? You will feel disappointment, maybe; regret, no. With no options, you just do the best you can. But with many options, the chances increase that a really good one is out there, and you may well feel that you ought to have been able to find it." My immediate reaction to the article was to wonder how maximizers and satisficers would vote. It's easy to assume that maximizers might desire a rigid governmental structure with few competing options, and that satisficers would prefer more freedoms and fewer restrictions. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate into such simplistic terms as "conservative" and "liberal." The maximizer who wants a very strong Department of Homeland Security, to enhance a feeling of safety, might also want to leave Social Security in the hands of the government, rather than privatizing it. The satisficer who feels comfortable making Social Security investment choices might see rigid security measures as intrusive and unconstitutional. Each would prefer the more conservative choice in one area and the more liberal one in another. I do think, though, that maximizers are more likely to be found at the extremes of political belief, and satisficers are more likely to be in the middle. The mindset which says, "There must be a final best answer to every problem, even if I haven't found it yet," is likely to be attracted to a political system that promises perfection, whether on the right wing or the left. The person who is merely looking for a viable solution, for something that fixes most of the problems without introducing new ones, will be impatient with the inflexibility of extreme views, whatever they are. And in America, I suspect that maximizers are more likely to be conservative. Socialism may attract maximizers in France and Italy, but I believe that over here, the persistent association of socialism with communism prompts many liberal-minded maximizers to shy away from it. They may cringe at the polemic of far-right-wing politicians and commentators, but their need to be assured that they have made the right choices is still likely to land them in the conservative camp. In the same way, I think they will turn up more often in strongly conservative religious denominations, where adherence to doctrine is even more important than in political circles. In Europe, they might just as well become atheists as fundamentalists, but the strong aversion to atheism in America seems to have an inhibiting effect on that particular form of extremism. The underlying motive is the same however—denying that there are any religious choices to make stems from the same fear of choosing wrongly that pushes the maximizer to let someone else make the choices. In both cases, the maximizer has handed over the ability to choose. The extreme maximizer is also less likely, I think, to be willing to discuss ethical, moral, religious or political issues. Comparing opinions with another person may force the maximizer to reconsider choices that he thought were long behind him, and raise old fears about having made the wrong choice. This is why political rhetoric based on fear is so effective, and so pernicious. "If you don't re-elect me, the country may succumb to terrorism," plays not just on the obvious concern (realistic or otherwise) for one's safety, but on an unspoken one: If you elect the other guy and there is another terrorist attack, it'll be your fault. It's less threatening for the maximizer to preach than to reason, safer to just refuse to discuss a touchy subject. I used to think such a person was simply insecure, unwilling to stand up for him- or herself, perhaps even lacking in principle and moral fiber—or that the inherent dogmatism in such people's views indicated an essential selfishness. The Scientific American article suggests that for many people, the problem is more one of never having learned how to choose, how to prioritize one's needs, and how to let go of a decision and live with it once the choice is made. posted by Liz @ 12:01 PM | The template is set to display 10 posts. To see all the posts for this month, click on the month name in the Archive section RSS Feed PERSONAL Send email toliz at life-as-a-spectator-sport.com Home I'm a mother, grandmother, a computer professional, Democrat, Christian. I welcome politely worded comments and email, my spam filter throws the rest away, so don't bother to flame me WHY 'LIFE AS A SPECTATOR SPORT' "If you're lucky not to live in the gutters of a slum, but still can't afford to take vacations in the Alps, you're part of that enormous middle class who lives life through the medium of the television, further separated from "real" life by air conditioner, by automobile, by dishwasher, microwave and ice-in-the-door refrigerator, by automatic washer and dryer, and all the other appliances and conveniences that make it possible for America to live life at second hand. I'm not sure why Americans decided that televised drama was better than the real thing, that cardboard microwave food containers were an adequate substitute for real dishes, and their contents for real food, or that cooking, dishwashing and face-to-face conversation wasn't worth the effort and time it required. Someone fed this nation a plastic crate of out-of-season tomatoes and told us it was life and we took them at their word, and we're so much the poorer for it that it's hard to know where to start to list the shortcomings." I wrote this a couple of years ago, but I have to admit it's much less amusing than I thought it would be to see the artifical construct falling apart. THE NON-ELECTRIC HOME Cleaning, 1 Cleaning, 2 Cleaning, 3 KNITTING BLOGS Extravayarnza Knitting Heretic Mind of Winter Pie Knits Persistent Illusion See Eunny Knit The Keyboard Biologist Taleweaver's Ramblings TECHnitting Wendy Knits FINISHED PROJECTS -------FINISHED IN 2006------- Peruvian Cap Tutti-Frutti Socks Shelley's Socks Carol's Socks -------FINISHED IN 2007------- Chain Link Socks Baby Surprise Jacket Valerie & Friend Baby Bonnet Rainbow Baby Socks Girls Pixie Hood Mitred Square Heart Red & White Socks Coffee Cup Pot Holder Nubbins Dishcloth Garterlac Dishcloth Suede Booties Kate's Socks Norwegian Sweet Baby Cap Half Thumbless Mittens Red Mittens for Akkol -------FINISHED IN 2008------- SELF-RELIANCE AND THE FUTURE -- Blogs and websites -- Causubon's Book Club Orlov Food Storage Made Easy From the Wilderness In the Wake Listening to Katrina Survival Topics The Modern Homestead The Oil Drum Notes from a Hillside Farm -- Mailing Lists -- 12vdc Power Living on the Land Rainwater Refrigeration Alternatives Old Ways of Living POLITICAL BLOGS and SITES The political sites have moved BOOKS I'M READING How to Grow More Vegetables, etc. Small Scale Grain Raising ARCHIVES February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 Feedjit Live Blog Stats
One feature of Blogger that I really like is the ability to create a draft, something you can work on over time while still being able to post other remarks. This particular draft is seeing the light of day after having resided in my drafts section for something over a month. I've always been more interested in why people believe as they do than in the philosophies themselves, fascinated with the meta-beliefs and fairly jaundiced about the social and political environment itself (hence "Life as a Spectator Sport"). It took the theft of the 2000 presidential election to wake me up to reality. I sat glued to the television, and pored over news articles, for two months, saying in disbelief, "But this is the United States of America! This just can't happen here!" In spite of my loss of political innocence, however, I'm still intrigued with the reasons behind people's beliefs. What prompts this person to filter the facts through one kind of logical sieve, and that person to choose a different one? I've tried and discarded a dozen theories, and found glaring exceptions to each one. An article in this month's Scientific American, The Tyranny of Choice, sheds some light, though it may raise more questions than it answers. The author, Barry Schwartz, asked why a multiplicity of choices in every arena of life has turned out not to be the key to happiness that it was once assumed to be. Schwartz said:Along with several colleagues, I have recently conducted research that offers insight into why many people end up unhappy rather than pleased when their options expand. We began by making a distinction between "maximizers" (those who always aim to make the best possible choice) and "satisficers" (those who aim for "good enough," whether or not better selections might be out there). We borrowed the term "satisficers" from the late Nobel Prize—winning psychologist and economist Herbert A. Simon of Carnegie Mellon University.Schwartz says, "When satisficers find an item that meets their standards, they stop looking. But maximizers exert enormous effort reading labels, checking out consumer magazines and trying new products." He adds, " . . . no one can check out every option,, but maximizers strive toward that goal, and so making a decision becomes increasingly daunting as the number of choices rises. Worse, after making a selection, they are nagged by the alternatives they have not had time to investigate. . . . When reality requires maximizers to compromise—to end a search and decide on something—apprehension about what might have been takes over." He adds, "When you have no options, what can you do? You will feel disappointment, maybe; regret, no. With no options, you just do the best you can. But with many options, the chances increase that a really good one is out there, and you may well feel that you ought to have been able to find it." My immediate reaction to the article was to wonder how maximizers and satisficers would vote. It's easy to assume that maximizers might desire a rigid governmental structure with few competing options, and that satisficers would prefer more freedoms and fewer restrictions. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate into such simplistic terms as "conservative" and "liberal." The maximizer who wants a very strong Department of Homeland Security, to enhance a feeling of safety, might also want to leave Social Security in the hands of the government, rather than privatizing it. The satisficer who feels comfortable making Social Security investment choices might see rigid security measures as intrusive and unconstitutional. Each would prefer the more conservative choice in one area and the more liberal one in another. I do think, though, that maximizers are more likely to be found at the extremes of political belief, and satisficers are more likely to be in the middle. The mindset which says, "There must be a final best answer to every problem, even if I haven't found it yet," is likely to be attracted to a political system that promises perfection, whether on the right wing or the left. The person who is merely looking for a viable solution, for something that fixes most of the problems without introducing new ones, will be impatient with the inflexibility of extreme views, whatever they are. And in America, I suspect that maximizers are more likely to be conservative. Socialism may attract maximizers in France and Italy, but I believe that over here, the persistent association of socialism with communism prompts many liberal-minded maximizers to shy away from it. They may cringe at the polemic of far-right-wing politicians and commentators, but their need to be assured that they have made the right choices is still likely to land them in the conservative camp. In the same way, I think they will turn up more often in strongly conservative religious denominations, where adherence to doctrine is even more important than in political circles. In Europe, they might just as well become atheists as fundamentalists, but the strong aversion to atheism in America seems to have an inhibiting effect on that particular form of extremism. The underlying motive is the same however—denying that there are any religious choices to make stems from the same fear of choosing wrongly that pushes the maximizer to let someone else make the choices. In both cases, the maximizer has handed over the ability to choose. The extreme maximizer is also less likely, I think, to be willing to discuss ethical, moral, religious or political issues. Comparing opinions with another person may force the maximizer to reconsider choices that he thought were long behind him, and raise old fears about having made the wrong choice. This is why political rhetoric based on fear is so effective, and so pernicious. "If you don't re-elect me, the country may succumb to terrorism," plays not just on the obvious concern (realistic or otherwise) for one's safety, but on an unspoken one: If you elect the other guy and there is another terrorist attack, it'll be your fault. It's less threatening for the maximizer to preach than to reason, safer to just refuse to discuss a touchy subject. I used to think such a person was simply insecure, unwilling to stand up for him- or herself, perhaps even lacking in principle and moral fiber—or that the inherent dogmatism in such people's views indicated an essential selfishness. The Scientific American article suggests that for many people, the problem is more one of never having learned how to choose, how to prioritize one's needs, and how to let go of a decision and live with it once the choice is made.
Along with several colleagues, I have recently conducted research that offers insight into why many people end up unhappy rather than pleased when their options expand. We began by making a distinction between "maximizers" (those who always aim to make the best possible choice) and "satisficers" (those who aim for "good enough," whether or not better selections might be out there). We borrowed the term "satisficers" from the late Nobel Prize—winning psychologist and economist Herbert A. Simon of Carnegie Mellon University.
The template is set to display 10 posts. To see all the posts for this month, click on the month name in the Archive section
RSS Feed
PERSONAL
WHY 'LIFE AS A SPECTATOR SPORT'
"If you're lucky not to live in the gutters of a slum, but still can't afford to take vacations in the Alps, you're part of that enormous middle class who lives life through the medium of the television, further separated from "real" life by air conditioner, by automobile, by dishwasher, microwave and ice-in-the-door refrigerator, by automatic washer and dryer, and all the other appliances and conveniences that make it possible for America to live life at second hand. I'm not sure why Americans decided that televised drama was better than the real thing, that cardboard microwave food containers were an adequate substitute for real dishes, and their contents for real food, or that cooking, dishwashing and face-to-face conversation wasn't worth the effort and time it required. Someone fed this nation a plastic crate of out-of-season tomatoes and told us it was life and we took them at their word, and we're so much the poorer for it that it's hard to know where to start to list the shortcomings." I wrote this a couple of years ago, but I have to admit it's much less amusing than I thought it would be to see the artifical construct falling apart.
THE NON-ELECTRIC HOME
Cleaning, 1 Cleaning, 2 Cleaning, 3
KNITTING BLOGS
Extravayarnza Knitting Heretic Mind of Winter Pie Knits Persistent Illusion See Eunny Knit The Keyboard Biologist Taleweaver's Ramblings TECHnitting Wendy Knits
FINISHED PROJECTS
SELF-RELIANCE AND THE FUTURE
POLITICAL BLOGS and SITES
BOOKS I'M READING
How to Grow More Vegetables, etc. Small Scale Grain Raising
ARCHIVES
February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002
Powered by BLOGGER Template made possible by BLOGSKINS.
