Are too many choices bad for us?

[Le Libérer]

As I was running on my treadmill, the best place for my questions to self, I was pondering a thought; are too many choices a bad thing?

Some people from the Soviet Union era alway say they longed for many various items (and to be able to chose from them), because there wasnt a variety of choices. Interestingly they also said that life was simplier and they could enjoy it more.

Where do you stand where it comes to the abundance of choices? Do you desire them, because you feel like you have the control over your life in your hands? And if so, have you noticed whether the choices you make for yourself creates a better world for you? Or one of a more leisure?

(If you can back up your opinion with a philosopher, it will make this a lot more fun).

[Rafiq]

I'm on mobile now but Zizek's wife did a lecture on this, and it's on RSA animate on youtube. It shouldn't be too hard to find.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Le Libérer]

I'm on mobile now but Zizek's wife did a lecture on this, and it's on RSA animate on youtube. It shouldn't be too hard to find.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Rafig I want to hear what you say about it too.

[Comrade Trollface]

Alright, if you insist that something that you do not consider to be valid in and of itself can be transmorgofied into something that is valid by virtue of being in agreement with something published by a beardface with a book deal, then far be it for me to argue. My beardface is Henry Shue.

Henry Shue, I choose YOU!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v506/Yetsu/The%20Waterflower%20Front/Throw-pokeball.gif

In his book, Basic Rights, Shue argues that the best choices tend to be made by the people who will be most directly affected by their outcomes rather than by distant authorities, no matter how benevolent.

'Having less choices' does not so much decrease the number of choices as it gives those choices over to a distant authority. And for the most part, the distant authority is less competent to make the choice than you are. Comrade Stalin might think that vanilla and chocolate are the end all and be all in ice cream flavorology, but I know that pistachio just makes me happier. And isn't that what ice cream is all about? Making us happy?

Rather than giving over what meaningless little choices we have, we need to wrest all the big choices that the capitalists are making for us (and that the state capitalists made for us in the USSR) out of their grasp.

:::whistles and hopes that this post does not result in a ban:::

[Kotze]

In particular instances, introducing choice requires a lot of redundancy and so raises production cost tremendously and should therefore be avoided. Widespread availability of a specific service or item can contribute to its usefulness. Look up articles about the network effect.

If your question is meant in the sense of psychological burden on consumers (information overload, desires increasing with wealth) it's a rather silly question (ask yourself what would be the alternative). Look up articles about collaborative filtering.

Either way, I don't see how reading philosophers would help you with answering that question.

[Comrade Trollface]

In particular instances, introducing choice requires a lot of redundancy and so raises production cost tremendously and should therefore be avoided. Ah, but false choices (i.e. competing brands of pistachio ice cream) often require a great deal more redundancy than real (pistachio vs. vanilla) ones. Growing and making available multiple varieties of a crop (various strains of pistachio) requires no redundancy at all.

[electrostal]

These are some Western stereotypes that don't have much to do with reality. Whether you can drink Coca Cola, Pepsi and 50 other colas or just 2-3 brands doesn't really matter.

I think this only referrs to "choices" about what consumer goods you can buy.
The "Block" people, true, did not have that much different products to choose from but then again no one really lacked anything.

What about real "choices" such as getting an education?

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I can't see how it'd be a bad thing.

[Le Libérer]

To a certain extent I think it's unnecessary to create a new "ism" for every train of thought we get.

What does ism have to do with the question of the OP? Its actually not a new question. I will soon be finishing my Masters in Organizational Management and my house guest is from Cambridge doing his doctorate thesis on German Philosophers and we often get into very polarizing debates as to why people do things with considerations to how they were raised. He will take a stance using Nietzche's work and I with Engel or Marx. Its a fun game we play but very interesting and fun when researching our outcomes. Maybe I was reaching thinking posting such a question in the philosophy forum of a leftist message board may bring other philosophy students to the yard who could actually hold their own. Sorry my bad to make that assumption.

Maybe if I added pics to the scenario I might get more than a couple of serious bites.

1bqMY82xzWo

[Le Libérer]

These are some Western stereotypes that don't have much to do with reality. Whether you can drink Coca Cola, Pepsi and 50 other colas or just 2-3 brands doesn't really matter.

I think this only referrs to "choices" about what consumer goods you can buy.
The "Block" people, true, did not have that much different products to choose from but then again no one really lacked anything.

What about real "choices" such as getting an education?

Ive known people who will go thirsty if they dont get the right brand of soda they want, they simply will not drink Pepsi over Coke. But you are right. What about those big decisions and their effects on society? Under Capitalism too many choices can bring anxiety.

The overwhelming choices under Capitalism drives the Capitalistic lie that “Everyone can achieve riches.” I think of the Reggie Watts song where he discusses his choice of where to live in NYC. He states he lives in Williamsburg burrow because its close to the "city" He realizes its very expensive and it makes him poor, but but he is willing to pay for certain perceived conveniences them even though he suffers in very important areas of his life. He then goes on to apologize (or feel guilt) about his choices.

Watts:


"We got stores filled with shit, people dont know what to get. You are walking in for the options, here a choice, there a choice, everywhere a choice.

If those who do not achieve the American Dream, feel guilty for their perceived failures, or may feel poor. Unfortunately, instead of criticizing society for this, people too often turn their criticism inwards, beatin g themselves up for not measuring up and never feeling good enough. A variety of physical issues can result, from anorexia, alcoholism to workaholism and other addictions.

Because of this mindset, social change or the possibility of revolution will not occur. Workers /proletarian end up believing that they are in charge and have control when really their bosses still are in control.

[Positivist]

This is a very interesting issue. Of course, if it is percieved that one could be experiencing more, possibly better choices than they currently have, then they will perpetually desire them, even if they are non-existent. This too could be responsible for anxiety.

Now while I find it difficult to imagine a situation where an abundance of choices would cause anxiety, I do believe that there can be other negative consequences for said abundance. In order to establish diversity of choices, excessive production is necessary. This results in the more rapid depletion of resources. For example, everyone requires a sufficient supply of water to subsist, but within the consumerist system, in order to maintain a variety of choices, more water is packaged and filtered in different ways than is actually necessary.

[Ose]

Regarding choice, we can take parliamentary 'democracy' as an example. There are many parties that we can choose to vote for, but in this instance it is clear that this is merely an illusion of choice, as the options from which we can choose are dictated to us; we still have no real say in the running of national affairs. The same can be said of our choice of products - this can be dictated from above, either by corporations or by the state. In a truly democratic economy, the choices that people have should be governed by their wants and needs, when at present it could be argued that the inverse is true.

It's no good asking me whether I want shit or piss for my lunch, and calling it 'choice', when what I really want is a sandwich.

[Le Libérer]

**Removed off topic posts***

[¿Que?]

Choice is a very broad thing. I don't know how much we can learn about human beings and society with such a broad framing of the word. Furthermore, I'm not sure how useful it is in enacting changes to society, given such a broad conceptualization. When we are talking about the choices we make and the choices we have, there is a definite need to contextualize those choices in order for them to be germane to our stated project. Some choices have clear implications for our project, for example what organizations we are willing to work with. Other choices are less relevant, such as if I choose to go to sleep facing the left, right, or on my back.

Another problem is determining the very nature of choice and choosing. This brings up the issue of free will versus determination, a dichotomy philosophers define in various ways, and some who dismiss altogether. In the latter camp, I can point to one of our revleft resident philosphers/computer scientists who argues that the problem is that the dichotomy is really some kind of religious (specifically Christian) episteme. I would hope that should this particular philosopher read this characterization of his ideas, he would understand that it does not reflect the complexity of his understanding, but rather, a condensed interpretation made to fit a single sentence.

Given all this, I am left befuddles and bewilders as to where to start. Do the choices we make tell us something about what it means to choose? What about neurology and other fields of psychology and biology? How are our choices affected? A lot of questions come to mind...

Marx is known to have said something to the effect of people make decisions based on the historical situation they find themselves in. The context from where I heard this quote was not from reading Marx, but actually reading revleft, and the thread was a question concerning great man theories. Marx did not deny that people made choices, admitting that those choices are limited based on context, but it is unclear (to me) what Marx would have thought about choices made by a machine programmed to make specific choices based on specific conditions. To what extent do choice of a machine and a human resemble each other, and in which ways are they different? Does the structural organization of the decision making process affect the very nature of choosing? For example, if I program a machine to make a beep when a red light comes on, but not when a green light comes on, how does this relate to instructing an obedient human to do the same?

In practical terms and focusing on the issue of choice, I think previous posters have brought forward the one of the most relevant concepts regarding the ultimate project of the left, which is to provide for the entire world all human necessities in egalitarian fashion. This concept is redundancy, that is, avoiding having to perform labor that is unnecessary. Capitalism is full of redundancy. For all the various choices we have for our brand of cola, there is ultimately very little variation in the actual recipes. Indeed, cola companies do not pursue novel and interesting variations on different cola recipes. Instead, they seek to mimic recipes of the brands that sell the most. This is irrespective of the fact that the recipe itself has little to do with why people choose a particular brand of cola, and instead are really choosing a brand, either from loyalty or economic advantage (such as if one brand is less expensive or on sale). An example of this was Coca Cola's venture into the disaster known as New Coke. New Coke was developed after taste tests suggested that based on recipe alone, people preferred Pepsi's slightly higher sugar content. However, New Coke was a complete failure. There was a backlash and Coke was eventually forced to bring back their old formula, which they marketed as coke classic. Some have called the whole thing an organized publicity stunt, although I am skeptical that they intended New Coke to fail. Who knows?

Thus, this discussion leads us to the question of the meaning of our choices, aside from the meaning of the concept of choice itself. We want to have meaningful choices and I think there is no fundamental problem with having an increasing and variety of meaningful choices to make, from everything to what we eat, to who we spend time with, what we do for entertainment and on and on. The problem is that in capitalism, we are given limited meaningful choices, and almost unlimited meaningless ones. I have already talked about the meaningless choices when discussing redundancy, so I would like to conclude with an example of how limited many of our meaningful choices are. Employment is a very meaningful choice. Who we work for has deep implications to our lives. However, who we work for is generally a very limited choice, particularly for people without skills or education.

I do not think we have to many meaningful choices in capitalism, nor do I think there is anything wrong with having a limitless increase in meaningful choices. However, the meaning of our choices depends on a variety of things, and perhaps, even when discussing at the very broad and abstract level, there may be someone who could conceive of problems with having too many meaningful choices.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It depends; what are the choices? As others have pointed out, a vast choice in different brands of the same flavour of ice cream all made by companies for profit doesn't really amount to much, and is almost certainly a net negative. Too much choice is a bad thing when your "choices" aren't that much different to each other and are mostly crap anyway.

Even if (for the sake of argument) the choices themselves were all optimal and positive, that doesn't rule out the possibility of being able to frame the issue as one of "too much" choice. One could still be overwhelmed with a bounty of possibilities. But since I have a prejudice against arbitrarily limiting people's options, I would say that the problem is not "too much choice" but rather, "not enough decisiveness".

If people are having trouble making a decision, then assuming that there is nothing wrong with the available choices in themselves, then perhaps it is encumbent upon society to provide its members with the means to better make decisions. If a decision is truly trivial, then give it the level of thought it deserves. If you truly can't make up your mind and have no whims or preferences in the matter, then close your eyes and pick one at random.

I think though that when it comes to more weighty decisions, most ordinary people suffer from a lack of any real choice as opposed to an overabundance of it.

[ckaihatsu]

Regarding choice, we can take parliamentary 'democracy' as an example. There are many parties that we can choose to vote for, but in this instance it is clear that this is merely an illusion of choice, as the options from which we can choose are dictated to us; we still have no real say in the running of national affairs. The same can be said of our choice of products - this can be dictated from above, either by corporations or by the state. In a truly democratic economy, the choices that people have should be governed by their wants and needs, when at present it could be argued that the inverse is true.

It's no good asking me whether I want shit or piss for my lunch, and calling it 'choice', when what I really want is a sandwich.





Capitalism is full of redundancy. For all the various choices we have for our brand of cola, there is ultimately very little variation in the actual recipes. Indeed, cola companies do not pursue novel and interesting variations on different cola recipes. Instead, they seek to mimic recipes of the brands that sell the most.


Transcending beyond the capitalist mode of production means that we would be done with social alienation for good (from the products of our work, from being able to direct our own work, from each other in the workplace due to our labor-commodification there, from our population-proportionate political sovereignty, etc.) -- this implies that we would finally be able to realize the direction of society's implements as *we* want, and would have the material latitude that artists only *dream* about currently.

We *should* be able to determine what people would *most* like to see produced, regardless of market considerations, and to then produce exactly that, in the exact amounts desired.

Since the topic of consumer 'choice' is a gray-area and seems to puzzle some, the resolution is that 'trial runs' of pretty much *anything* can always be done in limited quantities and put out there as samples in order to see if the ball gets rolling or not.

[Lynx]

Where do you stand where it comes to the abundance of choices?
I take them for granted. Only a lack of choices is cause for me to be concerned.
Do you desire them, because you feel like you have the control over your life in your hands?
Yes, I desire the ones that appear to give me control over my life, but those choices are few and far between.
And if so, have you noticed whether the choices you make for yourself creates a better world for you? Or one of a more leisure?
Yes they have, but they are outside 'the norm' and I expect there will be a price to pay.

(If you can back up your opinion with a philosopher, it will make this a lot more fun).
Answering these questions is an exercise in introspection, not philosophy.

[ckaihatsu]

Can I excerpt from a bearded lady at the circus sideshow who's published on this subject?


= D

[Le Libérer]

Trollface, I am giving you a verbal warning. If you attack me or anyone else in this thread again, you will get an infraction or more.

[Le Libérer]

Where do you stand where it comes to the abundance of choices?
I take them for granted. Only a lack of choices is cause for me to be concerned.
Do you desire them, because you feel like you have the control over your life in your hands?
Yes, I desire the ones that appear to give me control over my life, but those choices are few and far between.
And if so, have you noticed whether the choices you make for yourself creates a better world for you? Or one of a more leisure?
Yes they have, but they are outside 'the norm' and I expect there will be a price to pay.

Answering these questions is an exercise in introspection, not philosophy.

Introspection if only part of the exercise. Dig a little deeper.

[Lynx]

When people say that many choices cause them anxiety, I don't relate to that. I become annoyed if I have to spend much time making a choice, but how much time I spend is up to me.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As others have said, there are choices and then there are choices.There is a hiearchy. It would seem that the lower level choices-what ice cream we prefer, for example, are both the least significant and the ones least removed from direct free will. I prefer chocolate ice cream, that is actually the only flavor I eat. This choice is probably largely determined by whatever receptor sites in my brain which create a craving for chocolate.

Under capitalism we are indunated with meaningless choices. Marcuse's idea of "repressive desublimation"may apply here and I remember Marx talked about this )I think) in vol 2-capitalism may create "liberated zones" as a means of further social control.As Bruce Springsteen said, we have "200 channels of shit to choose from".Youth cultures very rapidly become commodified.

Choice of course is always mediated by our circumstances- "man makes his own history, but not under conditions of his choosing"

A higher level choice, a meta choice has more significant and probably is more connected with free will.

If conditions are bad where one lives once could choose to emigrate, choose to grin and bear it and hope things get better, choose suicide or choose collective action. Greece recently has examples of all four, sadly. Marxists would say that the best or highest choice is collective action. Socialism isn't inevitable but ultimately depends on free will and choice.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Having choices means we have control.There can be too many choices of the superficial type-what breakfast cereal to buy, Star Trek vs Firefly, chocolate vs vanilla.

There can be no such thing as "too many choices" at higher levels. The more choices, the more we open the realm of human possibility.

COTR, is your friend perhaps an admirer of BF Skinner's Walden II?

[Le Libérer]

Having choices means we have control.
In Capitalism many choices can make us "feel" like we have control when in reality we are losing control over things that are important. I have often thought, "who is going to fight in the revolution when the younger generation spends their time, smoking weed, eating junk food, and playing video games?" The choices those who are suppose to be the fittest in our society have chosen to spend their time and money on many things that aren't good for them. So the smaller choices do and will effect whether or not social change (our revolution) happens and is successful.





COTR, is your friend perhaps an admirer of BF Skinner's Walden II?

I will ask him.

[ckaihatsu]

When people say that many choices cause them anxiety, I don't relate to that. I become annoyed if I have to spend much time making a choice, but how much time I spend is up to me.


I think this very question was on a psych exam I once did on an application for employment...(!)


= )





As others have said, there are choices and then there are choices.There is a hiearchy. It would seem that the lower level choices-what ice cream we prefer, for example, are both the least significant and the ones least removed from direct free will. I prefer chocolate ice cream, that is actually the only flavor I eat. This choice is probably largely determined by whatever receptor sites in my brain which create a craving for chocolate.


Um, you do know that the brain is malleable and can be reconditioned depending on your own conscious (and less-than-conscious) choices and habits, right -- ?

(No one would be buying and eating any other flavor *but* chocolate if this was entirely biologically determined, as you seem to be implying.)





In Capitalism many choices can make us "feel" like we have control when in reality we are losing control over things that are important. I have often thought, "who is going to fight in the revolution when the younger generation spends their time, smoking weed, eating junk food, and playing video games?" The choices those who are suppose to be the fittest in our society have chosen to spend their time and money on many things that aren't good for them. So the smaller choices do and will effect whether or not social change (our revolution) happens and is successful.


While your sense of responsibility is admirable, the way to not end up with some kind of grandpa syndrome is to just keep in mind that *we all* are consumers at times, as well as workers and political beings, at various points on our timelines. (And I don't mean to imply that I entirely have this down myself.)

I think what we would *like* to see, as revolutionaries, is for everyone to comprehend their potential population-proportionate political sovereignty as the de facto denizens and caretakers of the world. Yes, we're currently encouraged to be passive and hands-off, because the economics *itself* is hands-off -- the market mechanism does not need any democratic input, and does not allow any.

If that makes us realize and feel like we don't have any real control, it's because it's true -- a revolutionary politics can make this fact *explicit* to people, whoever they are, because it's reality for *all* of us.

[Ingraham Effingham]

I think more important than having many available lifestyle options to choose from, is the option of maintaining a lifestyle that minimizes said choices.

Some people love to have the freedom to make choices/decisions down to the final detail (I like a 14:1 egg to hot sauce ratio in my scrambled eggs on every tuesday in months with an 'R' in it, unless it's cloudy)

While others can't be bothered and would rather not choose every detail in life (I'll just have whatever today's special is, or whatever my spouse made today.)

The two extremes are 1) somebody who needs total control and EVERY available choice at all times, or 2) Somebody who needs to essentially be treated as a prisoner or slave, told where/how/when/why to do everything.

Like most things, the 0% or 100% examples are kinda insane, but every individual falls somewhere between the two. and i think a proper society would strive to accomodate as many as possible, without alienating or oppressing anybody. To do otherwise, would be oppresive.

People tend to shit on those that prefer some decisions made for them, branding them as 'sheeple' 'close-minded' right away, without considering fully whether forming an opinion on said decision is even worth the mental effort. "What do you mean you don't have an opinion on X? Way to be a useful idiot!" Let some live the simple, unobtruded farm life, and others the diverse micromanagement life.

It's pretty tough, i guess, but I think it would be easier for people to adopt a lifestyle closer to their preference in a communist society

[ckaihatsu]

Some people love to have the freedom to make choices/decisions down to the final detail (I like a 14:1 egg to hot sauce ratio in my scrambled eggs on every tuesday in months with an 'R' in it, unless it's cloudy)

While others can't be bothered and would rather not choose every detail in life (I'll just have whatever today's special is, or whatever my spouse made today.)

The two extremes are 1) somebody who needs total control and EVERY available choice at all times, or 2) Somebody who needs to essentially be treated as a prisoner or slave, told where/how/when/why to do everything.

Like most things, the 0% or 100% examples are kinda insane, but every individual falls somewhere between the two. and i think a proper society would strive to accomodate as many as possible, without alienating or oppressing anybody. To do otherwise, would be oppresive.


You're pointing out the complexity inherent to any given material situation, and arguably to living life itself.





I think more important than having many available lifestyle options to choose from, is the option of maintaining a lifestyle that minimizes said choices.


I don't think these are mutually exclusive -- as you've just pointed out, the point is to *accommodate* as much variety, or non-variety, as people want, depending on their personal inclinations. And, likewise, inherent to the definition of 'option' or 'choice' is the choice or option to 'pass' on exercising an option or judgment.





People tend to shit on those that prefer some decisions made for them, branding them as 'sheeple' 'close-minded' right away, without considering fully whether forming an opinion on said decision is even worth the mental effort. "What do you mean you don't have an opinion on X? Way to be a useful idiot!" Let some live the simple, unobtruded farm life, and others the diverse micromanagement life.


I tend to agree, but I'd also like to point out, on a tangent, that 'micromanagement' may be interpreted as a kind of managerial heavy-handedness and pettiness over subordinates within their own "jurisdictions" of decision-making latitude.





It's pretty tough, i guess, but I think it would be easier for people to adopt a lifestyle closer to their preference in a communist society


The tough thing about 'lifestyle' is that it can easily slip over the ranges of consumer choices, labor roles, and administrative / managerial roles.

I would think that a genuinely communist-type society would inherently *disallow* 'lifestyle preferences' if they happened to involve exercising personal authority, or imposed on others arbitrarily. The politics of communism would actually be quite *restrictive* for those who would tend to be socially domineering (except for consensual personal relationships).

A communist arrangement would be better at equalizing the world's *material productivity*, so that capital-based favoritism would no longer exist. People's casual, personal *interpersonal* kinds of relationships don't change much over the eons, I would say.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Great points

I tend to agree, but I'd also like to point out, on a tangent, that 'micromanagement' may be interpreted as a kind of managerial heavy-handedness and pettiness over subordinates within their own "jurisdictions" of decision-making latitude.

That might be my word-choice betraying my biased opinion.

[ckaihatsu]

Great points


Thanks.





That might be my word-choice betraying my biased opinion.


Feel free to elaborate, if you like. No need to be self-effacing.

[Kotze]

I have often thought, "who is going to fight in the revolution when the younger generation spends their time, smoking weed, eating junk food, and playing video games?" The choices those who are suppose to be the fittest in our society have chosen to spend their time and money on many things that aren't good for them.What choices would you like not to have? Or is that choice problem something mainly applying to the young whippersnappers?

Let me tell you, when I was a kid, we did have video games, but we didn't spend much money on them. We had a few games, and we made the most of it. Our games didn't have instant save or instant respawn, oh no, a failure was a setback; and when you were offered your last continue and you took it and then did not make it through the game, Hiroshi Yamauchi himself would come to your house and call you a fatmerican disgrace to the gaming race and kill you for real. And we were thankful.

:closedeyes:

The reason why some people have reacted in a hostile manner to your question is that it reminds them of
-what conservatives say when they praise the "simple and honest" life of the past, meaning they are blaming moral ills on a too high share going to wages
-what liberals say when they picture giving in to social pressure as an individual's problem with that individual becoming enlightened as the solution, as if it were solely a matter of self-esteem and not something shit like having a job depends on
-what cappies say when they paint leftists as some eatoatmealerryday Ned Flanders no-fun types.

Your question reminds people of stupid stuff. I think your question is stupid, and if some non-stupid thoughts led to your writing, they haven't appeared yet in the text :P If I have to make a philosophy reference to count as having an informed opinion: Buridan's ass (http://wordsmith.org/words/buridans_ass.html). If you care about informing people how they are manipulated through superficial choice, I suggest that instead of reading philosophers (maybe this one is okay though: On Sales Resistance (http://www.personal.kent.edu/%7Ermuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/HearstColumns/onSaleResistance.htm), rant by Bertrand Russell from 1932) you read up on behavioural-econ terms like anchoring and hyperbolic discounting or ask anybody who has worked in sales about upselling tricks.

@Ingraham Effingham: Search the web for Liquid Democracy if you haven't heard the term yet.

[Le Libérer]

what conservatives say when they praise the "simple and honest" life of the past, meaning they are blaming moral ills on a too high share going to wages
-what liberals say when they picture giving in to social pressure as an individual's problem with that individual becoming enlightened as the solution, as if it were solely a matter of self-esteem and not something shit like having a job depends on
-what cappies say when they paint leftists as some eatoatmealerryday Ned Flanders no-fun types.

Uh, You are the only one who seems hostile about the OP. Theres nothing in Capitalism economic theory that would EVER quesiton if choices are bad for you. So I am here to conclude its more you, and you have a personal problem with a very successful thread, imo. I say that because you chose a few words to quote and built something completely hostile from it without taking into consideration every said before by me and those I responded to. Thinking about what ifs is not the same as blaming others for the thought. smh.

(And we all know what that is).

Or maybe you have internalized what I said as criticism of your choices without me knowing they applied to you. Internalization of perceived criticism of your choices therefore lashing out due to maybe guilt over those choices? Who knows. Also, have I ever told you I think your avatar is friggin annoying? Was that choice on purpose to annoy others?

[Le Libérer]

While your sense of responsibility is admirable, the way to not end up with some kind of grandpa syndrome is to just keep in mind that *we all* are consumers at times, as well as workers and political beings, at various points on our timelines. (And I don't mean to imply that I entirely have this down myself.)

I think what we would *like* to see, as revolutionaries, is for everyone to comprehend their potential population-proportionate political sovereignty as the de facto denizens and caretakers of the world. Yes, we're currently encouraged to be passive and hands-off, because the economics *itself* is hands-off -- the market mechanism does not need any democratic input, and does not allow any.

If that makes us realize and feel like we don't have any real control, it's because it's true -- a revolutionary politics can make this fact *explicit* to people, whoever they are, because it's reality for *all* of us.

Thank you. I like everything you said here. One thing though, I will never have a grandfatherly anything. I am a woman. :)

[Permanent Revolutionary]

To the original question, I have to say yes. We have way to much "choice" which only serves to give an illusion of choice, as in many cases where choice is implied, there is no choice at all.
This is the case for consumer products, politics, entertainment etc.

[ckaihatsu]

Thank you. I like everything you said here. One thing though, I will never have a grandfatherly anything. I am a woman. :)


Thanks. Just an expression.





To the original question, I have to say yes. We have way to much "choice" which only serves to give an illusion of choice, as in many cases where choice is implied, there is no choice at all.
This is the case for consumer products, politics, entertainment etc.


I'll side with this take on it...





What choices would you like not to have?


...And also note that any given panoply of choices or options is a landscape of complexity, determined firstly by one's immediate surrounding physical space. As self-aware and metacognition-able beings we're more than equipped with the cognitive abilities to take in our surroundings (and beyond) and to use mental representations to store all kinds of observations and information, for the purposes of making decisions:





‘’’Chunking’’’, in psychology, is a phenomenon whereby individuals group responses when performing a memory task. Tests where individuals can demonstrate "chunking" commonly include serial and free recall tasks. All three tasks require the individual to reproduce items that he or she had previously been instructed to study. Test items generally include words, syllables, digits/numbers, or lists of letters. Presumably, individuals that exhibit the "chunking" process in their responses are forming clusters of responses based on the items' semantic relatedness or perceptual features. The chunks are often meaningful to the participant.It is believed that the assimilation of different items according to their properties occurs due to individuals creating higher order cognitive representations of the items on the list that are more easily remembered as a group than as individual items, themselves. Representations of these groupings are highly subjective, as they depend critically on the individual's perception of the features of the items and the individual’s semantic network. The size of the chunks generally range anywhere from two to six items, but differs based on language and culture. For example, Chinese speakers can remember up to ten digits because the number words are all single syllables. "Chunking" maintains a number of characteristics when observed in recall tasks.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunking_(psychology)

[ckaihatsu]

As an addendum I'd just like to note that there are a finite number of general areas of subject matter....


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

http://postimage.org/image/1d4ldatxg/

[Rafiq]

Choice in itself does not exist as such, in the abstract. Choice can only exist in Bourgeois society so long as it is constrained by the choices the Bourgeois class establishes are in favor of it's own interest. Furthermore, choice isn't only limited by the interests of the ruling class, because those interests can be weakened and have been weakened in the past. The point is that choice is untimely not only constrained by material conditions, it is shaped and established as a reflection of material conditions. For one, Revolution isn't a simple matter of "choice" or "preference", because it is itself, as a demand inevitable in all capitalist modes of production on behalf of the proletarian class. We all know Marx's famous statement, that the conditions and demands of the Communist party are a direct reflection of the conditions which it fights against.

Now in regards to consumer goods, it is quite useless and it is indeed exclusive to capitalist society. They talk of "consumer democracy", but let's be quite frank, is that really of necessity? In reality, consumer democracy is nothing more than the strengthening of rivalries between different factions of hte bourgeois class. It's not as if we are presented with either getting X or Y, and making a choice that is fully abstract and isolated from the Bourgeois mystifications set forth. No, we don't simply want, we have to be taught what to want.

[Kotze]

Theres nothing in Capitalism economic theory that would EVER quesiton if choices are bad for you.On the contrary, there is an abundance of choice if you want criticism of choice, and among the available angles are reformist and reactionary ones.

I would never claim that the network effect and anchoring are only known among radical leftwing economists. The concept of too broad choice is a part of economics, including mainstream, with the extreme free-market people having a bit less of an emphasis on that, but even they don't hold that everyone should be free to individually choose which side of the road to travel on.

The reactionary position against direct democracy is that, since a person needs help for topics one doesn't know much about and many individuals in many situations don't know shit (true), there always must be a strong hierarchy and you can't give most people much choice. If you don't want to appear to hold that position, you should not talk about people's small choices like you have done here in this thread.

And who are you to judge what a small choice is? Some picky eaters have serious allergies.

[Kotze]

Now in regards to consumer goods, it is quite useless and it is indeed exclusive to capitalist society.No.

Consumers having choice is older than capitalism, if you go by capitalism in the meaning of Marx.

Any kind of group-decision process of potential receivers of use-values for some readjustment of who receives which use values after they are already produced can be understood as consumer choice, and is — though its role in determining distribution will be smaller — compatible with lower-stage communism in the meaning of Marx.

[Rafiq]

Consumer choice didn't really exist in the same way it does now in any previous mode of production. Sure, you can choose between different resources some kind of merchenat was selling, but not to the point where it became an extremely necessary component in the mode of production.

[Dean]

Consumer choice didn't really exist in the same way it does now in any previous mode of production. Sure, you can choose between different resources some kind of merchenat was selling, but not to the point where it became an extremely necessary component in the mode of production.

I don't think you're right at all. Choice has been far more significant in previous modes of production, and indeed, in earlier forms of capitalism. Capitalism by its nature tends towards homogenization of consumer goods.

Before there was the accumulation of capital, private artisans (employed and entrepreneurial) were the primary representatives of skilled labor. Their output varied from person to person, not only in their personal handiwork, but including everything from what raw materials they used to how many different choices each artisan produced. Moreover, consumers were able to have custom items made on the spot - no driving to the next town to be measured at the Big and Tall for them to order a suit in. (One of) your local tailor(s) will do it.

Under capitalism, we have a lot of brands and flavors. But of what significance are the differences? I like raw food such as sushi, but because it is not a standard lower class diet in this area (unlike, say, Hawaii where you can find 4$ sushi rolls) I can't expect to have even cheap varieties, and certainly not conveniently, cheap or not. Because relying on fried food guarantees businesses a market (also see Law of Demand), it is the primary, and often only choice for cheap dining.

Studies have also shown that groceries in poor areas are less likely to have fresh produce, or produce at all. Capital accumulation means that when you go to the market, there are no longer a plethora of vendors to choose from: there is one, with maybe one to four brand options for most kinds of foods, while constituent options (such as "Diet" or "Extra Cheesy") introduce changes in a narrow set of variable(s). 5 types of one brand of chip dip will all use the same sour cream, and included preservatives that may affect taste or health are almost sure to be common to all brands. Supermarkets are further set up such that the time cost to leave the store and shop for value is inefficient, so most consumers do their grocery shopping at 1 store.

Choice is not really a characteristic of capitalist markets, despite the idealism we are fed. What is an option as a consumer in capitalism is to identify with rigid archetypes - like health food, convenience or decadence in flavor - while limiting the differences between products because of the Law of Demand and the market versatility that homogenous demand confers on products.

The very greatest factor of consumer choice is in personally creating your own products. Of course this is a legend or relic of past modes of production in nearly all industries today. The best application of choice in socialism starts from the definition of the term itself: the social management of the means of production, including determination of choices and kinds of products produced. I expect worker collectives and consumer unions will resolve many of the problems with foods today, not only because consumers care about their health, but workers are, too. I have heard the strongest arguments for better products for consumers from those who personally work on them. As Marx & co. say, the socialist model seeks to end man's existence as an object of the market (here as an animal to be manipulated to move more and cheaper, homogenous product) and to make our role one of active participation and domination over market forces. Raw efficiency is no longer a problem with our level of technology - we can make products with the full knowledge and participation of all those consumers and workers who will make and use them. In such a context, it is the amount of effort you put into society, rather than in manipulating market forces, that allows you to get what you want.

[Rafiq]

I think I was referring to, more along the lines the mystification of choice or the illusion of choice, i.e. We are told that our choices as consumers drive the capitalist mode of production, and this is a component of the ideological mystification as a product of such (the capitalist mode of production.

[Dean]

I think I was referring to, more along the lines the mystification of choice or the illusion of choice, i.e. We are told that our choices as consumers drive the capitalist mode of production, and this is a component of the ideological mystification as a product of such (the capitalist mode of production.

Bear in mind that I wasn't trying to make an exposition against your idea, but I was using my response as a vehicle for my own thoughts on the topic. It's interesting (infuriating) that we are given a few choices, none of which are good, but choosing none is even harder/worse (i.e. not voting at all makes your opinion irrelevant in the dominant narrative, growing one's own food rather than buying Cargill, Dole and Koch products is much harder and possibly more expensive). Moreover, the choices we are allowed are designed - deliberately or via market/cartel forces - to totally disempower the consumer, and the homogenization of choices in the market is one of the chief mechanisms that produces this outcome. Capitalism may give us choices, but it never gives us power as consumers or workers.

[ckaihatsu]

[I]t's interesting (infuriating) that we are given a few choices, none of which are good, but choosing none is even harder/worse (i.e. not voting at all makes your opinion irrelevant in the dominant narrative,


This is the key term / concept / dimension here -- 'narrative'.

Human history has a storyline whether we like it or not, and whether we're a part of it or not. Abstentionism is always tempting, but who's to say that the overall story gets *better* if the masses don't involve themselves in creating it from this point forward -- ?

Even being perfectly scientific and objective is of questionable effect here, since it can be almost the same as abstentionism -- one can have the right analysis every time and still possibly live one's whole life without having any effect on how events unfold on the world stage.

The framework in post #36 indicates this -- sure, there are material constraints to society's trajectory, and it also may have a logic of its own, but nothing guarantees that knowing all of this necessary leads to actually being "in the game". And how is "the game" affected by our class-conscious efforts if the "game" is not one of our choosing to begin with -- ?