The Paradox of Choice
In the beginning, there was patriarchy. And it was EEEEEEEEEVIL. Under patriarchy, men were expected to get married. And they were expected to have children soon after getting married. You know why they had children? Because patriarchy was oppressive and forced them to marry women.
There was not a lot of choice built into the system. Men not only had to marry women, but they had to marry women of the appropriate station.
If Henry wanted to get married, he could marry Katherine or Anne or Jane. That was it.
Now that the enlightened Baby Boomers have overthrown the dreaded Patriarchy, people have more choice in matters marital and sexual. Henry does not have to confine his choices to Katherine, Anne or Jane. He can now also marry Tiffany, Barbara, Aiko, Taliqua, or Fatima. Not only that, in some states Henry can even “marry” James, Edward or Robert. Or he can even forget about marriage altogether and play the field for the rest of his life.
It seems that Henry is spoiled for choice. He must constantly frolic and rejoice to celebrate all that choice. That’s how things work, right? The more choices people have, the happier they are. Right? Right?
Well, Enter Professor Barry Schwarz to burst your bubble. He has shown that more choice does not necessarily produce more happiness. In fact, it may produce more unhappiness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM
Before I introduce his findings, I must first mention that Professor Schwartz ultimately uses his findings to advocate for governmental redistribution of wealth. I think this part of his talk is a tremendously misguided. First of all, the probability of any government redistributing wealth in a way that maximizes happiness long term approaches zero. Second, governments powerful enough to achieve that end tend to maximize horror and death, not happiness. So, we must ignore that part of his talk. He sounds so much more enlightened without it in there. If you don’t believe me about the bad effects of governmental redistribution, please go read Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek or Ludwig von Mises and don’t bother me with your objections. If you’re still not satisfied, a reading of The Black Book of Communism should surely sate your curiosity as to how deadly powerful governments can be.
Now back to our program.
So, Henry can marry Katherine or he can “marry” James. That exhausts his choice of sexual orientation right? There’s gay and there’s straight. That’s his choice, right? What else can there be?
I’m glad you asked. Not only is there gay and straight, but there’s bisexual, pansexual, asexual, pomosexual, polysexual, two-spirit, queer, questioning, intersex. There’s more. Trust me. I’m not making this up. Maybe I’m not so glad you asked.
Henry, who is presumably born with male parts, is not even stuck being male. He can be transgendered, right? But that’s it. He can be male or transgendered. Those are his choices. Right? Not so fast. He can also be androgyne, hijira, third sex, cisgender, pangender… Oh, for the love of all that is good and holy! Look this up on Wikipedia for yourself if you’re bored enough. Let’s just say he has a lot of choices. I mean a lot.
I’m not taking any position on whether this multitude of sexual and gender orientations describe anything that is real or if they were just made up whole cloth by a committee of dour, obsessive feminists who look like truck drivers. I’m just raising the point that one can choose not only whom he marries, but he can choose from about a billion different variations on “gender identity.”
Choosing a sexual identity is not like choosing a salad dressing. (Unless, of course, you’re like that person at 9:44 of the video). Society expects that your choice of sexual identity will be for all eternity. (Witness the derision heaped on people who claim to be “ex-gay.” Whether or not they truly changed their sexual preference is secondary. The point is that people tend to believe that the choice of identity, once made, is made forever). Perhaps if Henry switches from being “cisgender” to being “pangender” nobody will question him because that’s all a bunch of nonsense, but the point still holds.
None of this is to say we choose our likes or dislikes. That’s all beside the point. The point is that we choose our behavior and we choose how to present ourselves to others. People expect others to stick with certain of their choices.
So, in the realm of sexual and gender identity, we have a lot of choices. This presents us with certain problems. Professor Schwartz describes those problems.
The first effect is with all these options to choose from, people end up choosing none. They simply pass.
So if you’re a retailer what that means is that you actually sell less. People just don’t know how to choose, they walk out and they throw their hands up in dismay, they walk out empty handed. That’s one problem.
Second effect is that if people overcome this indecision and paralysis and choose, they may choose badly. And here’s what I mean. If you’re trying to buy a stereo system, let’s say, there are certain things about it that are easy to evaluate and other things that are hard to evaluate. Sound quality, fidelity, loudness, those are more difficult than, say, physical appearance. If you have a lot of options to choose from, it’s just not possible to do the difficult evaluation of each of the features that matter. So what you’re likely to do is simplify the task and choose on the basis of what’s easy to evaluate, even if that’s not what’s so important.
So you might choose by brand and price and ignore all those wonderful subtle features that producers of these goods take so much trouble to create. Now if it happens that all you care about is the simple things like brand and price, you’re not harmed by this simplifying but if you actually care about other things, you’ll end up making a less than optimal choice.
So first is paralysis, the second is worse decisions.The third thing, which is in some ways the most surprising, is if you overcome paralysis and manage to choose, and you manage to choose well, you’ll be less satisfied with what you’ve chosen if you’ve chosen from a large set than if you’ve chosen from a small one.
So even though you do well, you end up disappointed and of course you’re likely to blame that disappointment on the thing you’ve chosen and not on your own psychological processes, and the reason for this is that it’s very unlikely that there’s one stereo or one cereal or one place to go on vacation or one restaurant that is in every respect the best. So you have to make trade-off s. And if you’ve considered a lot of options and you say “No” to most of them, you’re saying “No” to a lot of really attractive features of the other options.
And even if you make the right choice, you end up thinking about all those other wonderful things you’ve passed up, and that makes your choice less satisfying.
In light of Professor Schwartz’s remarks, many of the items in that huge list of gender and sexual identities make a whole lot more sense. It would seem to me that a person who describes himself as intersex, two-spirit, pomosexual, or some of those other more exotic variations is paralyzed by the array of choice. Those identities seem to be a way of avoiding choice. Does our society really need to foster that kind of confusion? Does it have any benefit?
Also, it seems plausible that the multitude of choices in matters sexual produce less happiness. Redefining marriage to include same sex unions will only add to this problem. It seems obvious to me that such a change will result in people asking a small children “so, are you going to marry a woman or a man?” They would think that they are liberating the child by increasing the child’s available choices. They’re not. By increasing those available choices they may be causing more unhappiness rather than more happiness.
This is especially true because people begin to make their decisions on how they are going to behave in sexual matters at an early age. They also tend to view that choice as rather permanent. Youth is confusing enough as it is. Do we really need to burden down our young with so many choices in matters sexual?
I’m not advocating that we make homosexual conduct illegal or that we ban transgender surgery or anything like that. I’m not trying to promote laws of any kind.
I’m trying to change minds. And what is it that I propose? I propose that we limit the apparent choice. Why should we as adults, parents, or educators be telling children about their options in sexual matters? What benefit does it have? Perhaps society was onto something when it expected its members to follow one tried and true path– the path that society believed offered the most benefits to the perpetuation of the society, if not every individual. Perhaps we lost something by discarding those attitudes and beliefs. Perhaps our attitudes can revert back to the way it was.
Of course, none of what I propose need be done intentionally. All this choice in matters sexual strikes me as a symptom of a decadent society. I suspect that, given our nation’s unsustainable debts, our society’s era of wealth may be coming to a rapid end. Perhaps when people have to concern themselves more with their day to day existence they will have less chance to contemplate their navel in sexual matters. Perhaps the overabundance of choice will just work itself out.
Loading ...
The problem with the LGBT [stuff] is that they are all about sexual orientation and gender idenity. They even go so far as to sexualize intersex people and make an intersex medical condition look as if it’s a sexual gender and a sexual label.
Nicki,
Get with the times! The au courant term is now LGBTQQI.
As for the substance of your comment, I think that some of those distinctions will be rendered meaningless by improvements in neuroscience.
So basically what you’re saying is we should never, ever let people–and God forbid children–know that it’s possible, just possible, they might discover that they’re attracted to people of the same gender? Do you know how many kids spend their childhoods and youths and sometimes even their adulthoods tormented by overriding feelings that they haven’t even been given the words to express and understand? Is it conducive to human happiness to try and conceal from 3-8% of the human population the nature of their sexuality? Again, the RI proves itself a callous, cruel, and virulently anti-gay organization. And given that an increasing majority of Americans do not share your hatred of gay sexuality, you are also on track to become an irrelevant group.
Alex,
I think you’re misunderstanding my point. I just speculated that limiting apparent choice might produce more happiness in the aggregate.
That’s a testable hypothesis. It is motivated by curiosity and some evidence. Not hatred.
So many people who are at a loss for arguments trot out the old “hatred” canard. Good job. You completely lack both originality and reading comprehension.
When you say that people like me are going to become irrelevant, I’m not sure what you mean? Do you mean religious people? Are you sure about that? Have you read What Americans Really Believe by Rodney Stark. It’s the most comprehensive work on the subject. Furthermore, we’re going to out breed you. The future belongs to those who show up for it.
Hmm, I’ve always been under the impression most people are able to figure out their orientation and identity pretty easily. I really don’t want to judge how other people describe their orientation, because I don’t know what they’re going through/how they feel. These “limitless choices” don’t effect those who are secure in their identity. Using the given example, a person who goes into a store wanting a pair red headphones, they’re going to leave with a pair of red headphones. The problem isn’t having too many choices, it’s indecision.
Arlemagne,
You sort of evaded the issues I brought up. First, do you really believe that young people should be given no information about the fact that some of them will find that they’re gay or bisexual? I fail to see how refusing to inform gay kids about their sexuality will increase their happiness. Perhaps you believe, like so many on the Christian right, that if only nothing were said about homosexuality, it would cease to exist–as if the feelings in gay people’s souls are some sort of fad instead of a part of the human condition.
Secondly, you accuse me of accusing you of “hatred.” Well, let me ask you flat out–do you NOT despise gay sexuality and do you in fact believe, contrary to the scientific opinions of every medical and psychological organization in the First World, that it is “objectively disordered?”
Finally, almost every major poll I’ve seen has shown Americans almost evenly split on the issue of whether gay relationships are immoral or acceptable, but that number is starting to tilt in our (gay people and pro-equality peoples’) favor. Fifty years ago it would have been unthinkable to be openly gay. Today it’s common. I can’t be out to my grandfather–he’s of a generation that believes being gay is horrible. But not a single one of my contemporaries has offered me anything but support and acceptance. Which is not to say that there still aren’t plenty of young people who subscribe to religiously-motivated hostility to gay sexuality, and even more who subscribe to secular homophobia (and let’s not pretend that the two aren’t deeply, deeply intertwined). But it does show that, if you want to revert to a 1950′s-style total taboo on homosexuality, you’re going to have to come up with a very, very good reason why young people should want to have their out gay friends and family members’ sexuality treated as a shameful disorder rather than a normal and healthy variance of human sexuality.
Alex,
You seriously need to take one more look at what I wrote. You also seriously need to watch the video I posted. Nowhere does it say that homosexual desires will fade or whatever if people are not given the information about them. I simply said that there might be greater happiness if there were fewer known options. I’m sure there are people who can “go either way.” Those people would probably be happiest if they never have to consider the alternatives to the choices they made. It’s right there in the video. And not just on matters sexual. In matters of buying a stereo, people would be happier never having to consider the choices they COULD have made. That’s my whole point. As to what portion of people could “go either way”, theoretically speaking, in matters sexual, I would guess that that would include most, if not all, people if given the proper motivation. But that’s not relevant here.
Since you asked, my feelings towards homosexual conduct is this: I disapprove of it. But that said, it’s also necessary to state that I disapprove of driving on Saturdays, eating shrimp, and a host of other things. Homosexual conduct has no special place in my list of things I disapprove of. Frankly, 100% of people I’ve ever met (myself included) do things or have done things I disapprove of. I don’t hate everybody. I don’t hate shrimp eaters and I don’t hate gay people. But I would venture to say that you disapprove of attendance at right wing religious events. So we’re even. You disapprove of some of the things I do, and I disapprove of some of the things you do. I fail to see how this implies hatred.
I never said anybody should be shamed. But I do think that some reversion to a more patriarchal worldview is inevitable. The gay “marriage” battle may represent the high water mark for gay rights, followed by a long, slow fade. The future will tell.
I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you stop commenting of your perception of my character, and start posting substantive objections to what I said. And when you do that, please reference the video I posted, the long quotation I posted or somehow show that you have considered the information I have presented. Otherwise, this conversation is getting very boring.
Nerdygirl,
You’ve ALMOST got it. There certainly are people who would pursue same sex relationships regardless of the information they are given. For such people, this conversation is irrelevant.
There are others who could go either way. It is THAT group of people who would be most negatively affected in their happiness if they are given too many choices. For them and anybody who’s undecided about ANYTHING, it is best to pick something they’re reasonably happy with and never look back at the alternatives they COULD have chosen.
Alex,
Oops. As to your first question: I think that, at least in school, students should be given NO information about sexuality except the bare physiological facts about reproduction. The more hedonic aspects of sex is one of those things people tend to figure out on their own.
Of course, I have to wonder. What happens when (possibly if, but I’m betting on when) science proves orientation is in fact a part of our genetic make up? Also, your position seems to boil down to, screw people who know what they want, the people who DON’T know what they want might screw up?
Isn’t part of freedom to ability to make the wrong choice?
NG,
First of all, I would not bet on sexual preference being genetic. Biological maybe, genetic no. At least not completely.
The only position I took is that we oughtn’t give children instruction on the hedonic aspects of sex. How you think that translates that I think we should “screw” anybody is a mystery to me.
Arlemagne,
I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise that modern American/Western culture has been inundated with too much hollow “choice.” Where I disagree is the idea that sexual orientation falls under the category of these “choices,” in the way that one’s choice of stereo equipment does.
“All this choice in matters sexual strikes me as a symptom of a decadent society.” Is your insinuation here that the visibility of large numbers of non-heterosexual people in public life indicates “decadence?” Are you suggesting that an atmosphere tolerant of non-heterosexual identity is weak and immoral? Why do so many people on the Religious Right insist on perpetuating this canard that gay sexuality is an indicator of societal decay, instead of something that’s been part of the human condition since there have been humans?
And for the record, I do not disapprove of attendance at right-wing meetings. I myself am quite far to the right on many issues, though I forcefully reject any attempts to theocratize our society. I too, as a believing Jew, disapprove of shrimp-eating, as well as intermarriage. The latter, in fact, I view as a great tragedy for the Jewish people. I do not, however, propose to ban interfaith couples from marrying, even though my religion views their relationships as not ideal. The reason is that I don’t believe the state has the right to use its authority to stigmatize or disfavor groups whose identity or behavior runs contrary to the religious views of the majority. That would be theocracy, not constitutional democracy.
Alex,
I think the attachment to of too much importance to sex in general is a symptom of a decadent society. Same with the attachment of too much importance to cuisine, and other frivolous things. I’m not sure how the maximization of any pleasure can reflect otherwise.
I did not say that homosexuality is a symptom of a decadent society. I said that the proliferation of choices in sexual gender identities is. You will HAVE to admit that the list you can find on wikipedia is absolutely absurd. What word would you use to describe the parsing of miniscule differences between “pansexual” and “pomosexual”? But there are people who use these terms. Those people are decadent.
Look up my post on theocracy from a few months back. I’m against it more than you are.
I also explicitly said that a person probably does not choose his likes and dislikes, but his behavior. You must admit THAT is a choice.
Again, I agree that the proliferation of these splitting-hairs “identities” is pretty silly. That doesn’t change the fact that there are people who will, regardless of the prevailing culture and the presence or absence of “decadence,” be gay, be bisexual, and be transgendered. A just society will acknowledge them, provide them equality under the law, and protect them from discrimination.
You’re absolutely correct. Sexual orientation isn’t a choice, but sexual behavior is. And hunger isn’t a choice, but eating is. What exactly are you proposing? That 3-8% of the human population live celibate and alone for their entire lives? If that’s your belief, you’re entitled to it, and you’re entitled to preach it, and you’re entitled to teach it to your children, and you’re entitled to have it dictate with whom you associate and with whom you don’t. What you’re NOT entitled to do is to use the power of the state to deny recognition and protection for gay relationships, simply because you believe they shouldn’t exist. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what the Ruth Institute seems intent on doing–keeping gay people and their loves ones as legal strangers.
Alex,
I have a good friend who was married and is gay. His marriage failed (presumably) because of his same sex attraction. Now, do I believe that it would have been impossible for him to have had a happy and successful marriage? Not necessarily. Surely, the marriage he had was not happy and successful. But impossible is an awfully strong word. Impossible means that there is absolutely no contingency in which he could have been happy. I’m loath to use the word impossible without VERY good cause. Perhaps it’s extremely UNLIKELY that he would have been happy. But I think that’s all that a reasonable person can grant.
The fact remains that outside circumstances of whatever kind have less influence on people’s happiness than you would expect. If I were to tell you that in ten years, you would lose your right leg in an accident and ask you to estimate your level of long term unhappiness, you would probably guess wrong. Most people do. Likewise if I were to ask you the equivalent question about if you hit the lottery. This is an undeniable fact of human nature. I can provide many citations. I can also speak from experience. As can you, probably, if you really think about it. This fact should be taken into account in in this discussion. Ignoring it is to discuss the issue in a vacuum without reference to reality. We cannot do this.
Would that belief dictate that I think gay people should get married? No. That depends on each individual’s discipline and belief. It’s certainly a situation that is fraught with danger for both partners. But there are some people who could make it work. The only question is how many and under what circumstances. There are plenty of non-gay people who should not get married.
Do I think gay people should be “celibate and alone”? Gee, that’s an awfully bleak way of putting it. You could have said “devote his life to acts of kindness in the community” or some other such less bleak option. That said, the Torah forbids such relationships both to Jews and to Gentiles. I believe in the Torah. My opinion doesn’t enter into it. If I could, I would wave a magic wand and make everybody happy. I would make everything everybody wanted to do both permissible and harmless both physically and spiritually. But I can’t. This seems like one of those situations in which there are no good answers. Unfortunately, life provides many of these situations.
BTW, my friend who I referenced above is still searching after quite some time for a long term relationship. So far, nothing. (I guess it’s tough being a gay right winger). Anyway, maybe his marriage was not an ideal situation. Perhaps very far from it. But if he were still married, he would be neither celibate nor alone. In life, it’s really hard to know what the best option is. Fortunately, we have the Torah to give us instruction. For both this life and the next.
Lastly, I think you ought to read the post I did “Gay Patriot on Gay Marriage” to fill out your understanding of this issue a bit. It’s written by a gay man. I believe he favors gay marriage. But he cuts the issue down to size. Your view of the issue seems a bit, um, overblown.
Alex,
I do believe that you have hit the nail on the head with your post # 14. Good thing the Torah isn’t the law of this land, huh? I wonder if those who think that the law ought to reflect their religious predilections should move to theocratic countries instead of living in one premised on religious liberty (which of course includes the freedom not to have someone’s religious beliefs dictate one’s civil rights)? Why can’t people seem to be able to separate religious doctrine from civil law? I just don’t get it. What if Islam was the majority religion and Shari’a was the law of the land? Why can’t people allow others the same freedom and dignity that they desire and receive for themselves?
Arlemagne, sex is a natural human drive. We deny that drive at our peril. The best way of managing that drive is to direct it into lifelong married love, whether the participants are gay, straight, bisexual or transgendered. How cruel to expect people to be denied the most intimate and beautiful way of expressing one’s love for another human being just because you don’t approve of who they choose as a partner! Is your God one that hates His creation? Why would He create someone for a life of loneliness, and deny him or her the opportunity and beauty of true love? Your “choices” for gay people (be in a marriage with someone of the opposite sex and damage one’s own integrity and self-respect, not to mention the harm caused to the other person, or live a life of lonely celibacy, never experiencing the intimacy and power of real sexual love) are the very absence of choice altogether. Both “choices” would deprive your fellow human being of one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity–sexual expression between two people who love one another and who pledge their lives to each other. That just doesn’t sound like the God I know in my heart to be true.
Julia,
I have never advocated that the Torah be the law of the land. If you saw my post of several months ago “On Theology” you would see exactly why. In the present post, I said that I was not advocating for the change of any laws. Your comment would have more credibility if it were not contradicted by what I wrote both here and elsewhere. Please read a bit more closely next time.
You lefties seem to have two notes to hit on this issue: THEOCRACY and HATRED. You seem to have hit them both in your comment. Honestly, people shrieking “THEOCRACY” and “HATRED” get very boring. I’m not going to bother any further with your comment.
@Julia
Julia, God was pretty clear on marriage: Matthew 19:5-6 “…leave your father and mother, join your wife and become one…”; Eph. 5:22-32 “…union of a man and wife is the image of Christ and His Church…”.
You talk as though you have a “right” to sex. Where does this right come from? Is sex the pinacle of creation?
And yes, God is a God of Charity. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Just because something can be done (and it might feel good), does not make it ok to do. Anyone who calls himself a Christian and treats anyone with disrespect…is not a Christian. But treating someone with respect and being accepting of ones actions are not the same thing.
God’s law is higher than any government or law they can come up with.
Sorry, I misread the majority of the article as pertaining to adult “choices”. At what age to start talking to kids about sex and orientation is a tricky one. Talk too early, and they won’t have a clue what your talking about and could very well be mislead/swayed a way that’s not right for them. Talk too late, and they not only know, they have lots of misinformation ingrained in to them by their peers. (I swear the amount of misinformation teenagers, adults even, have about sex is ridiculous. This is what happens when pop culture does the educating as opposed to clinical medical information)
Nerdygirl,
I’m kind of surprised at you. If anybody was going to notice the “easter eggs” I’ve laid all throughout the above post (and some of my other posts in the past), I figured it would be you. I hyperlinked so much funny stuff. I’m surprised you didn’t click through to any of it.
Dude, I assume any youtube links left by you to be some obscure version of Kumbaya or some such nonsense. I just haven’t enough free time.
NG,
Naah. These links go to funnier stuff than that. The link on the word Barbara goes to a funny looking guy with a shock of blond hair in sunglasses singing in German about a brunette named Barbara. It’s hilarious. There’s also a funny clip about Hugh Hefner from The Soup.
Well then. That was special. That was a wig, right? Because, otherwise I’m claiming that mans hairstyle as proof God has a twisted sense of humor.
NG,
You must be too young to remember the seventies.
Guilty.
I argue this allows me to consider the 70′s as proof God has a twisted sense of humor.
NG,
Right wingers don’t much like David Frum anymore these days. But his book “How We Got Here” I think is a masterpiece. And so I have to say that I completely agree with you that the ’70s were proof of G-d’s sense of humor.