Why is a wide choice - it is a problem

In 210 BC Chinese general Xiang Yu led his troops across the Yangtze River, intending to attack the army of the Qin Dynasty. Warriors spent the night on the river bank, and woke up this morning, with horror found that their ships were burned. Soldiers rushed with all haste in search of the attackers, but he soon learned that he set fire to their ships, and Xiang Yu, in addition, he ordered to destroy all the boilers for cooking.

Xiang Yu told his soldiers that the loss of the boilers and the ships they had no choice, and - they must either conquer or perish. Of course, it did not Xiang Yu, one of the most popular generals in the Chinese army, but his actions have helped soldiers ultimately concentrate: seizing spears and bows, they were fiercely attacked the enemy and battles won nine in a row, almost completely destroyed the main military units dynasty Qin.

History of Xiang Yu was notable for the fact that it is completely contrary to human behavior.

As a rule, we do not like to close the door to our existing alternatives.

In other words, if we got into the armor of Xiang Yu, then sent a part of his army to look after the ships - in case they are needed for the retreat. More part of the army, we were asked to organize food - in case if the army will have to remain in place for several weeks. And third, we have instructed to make rice paper - just in case we need the parchment to sign on it an agreement on the surrender of the powerful Qin Dynasty (which was the most incredible case scenario of all listed).

In today's world, we desperately try to keep all the existing opportunities. We buy computer systems that allow modification, assuming that we ever need all these high-tech gadgets. Along with the new features we buy insurance in case his big screen suddenly goes off. we we force our children to do many things - hope that they will flash a spark of interest in gymnastics, piano, French, gardening or taekwondo. We buy a luxury SUV - not because they are planning to ride off-road, but because we want to have our car was a high clearance (what if we ever decide to go for a ride through the fields).

We do not always realize it, but in any case we have something to act in order to have more room for maneuver.

As a result, we have a computer, the number of functions in which more than we need, or stereo system with a very expensive warranty. As for our children, then we sacrifice, and our and their own time, and abandon the likelihood that children can become really successful in one activity. Instead, we try to give them some experience, but in a wide range. Catching up on one thing, then another thing, each of which seems to us important that we forget to give enough time what is important in reality. This is a stupid game that we know how to play nice.

I noticed the existence of such a problem with one of my students, a talented guy named Joe. After studying at the undergraduate, Joe passed all the necessary exams and now had to choose a specialization. But what? He had a passion for architecture, and he spent all his weekends studying Boston eclectic buildings. He believed that one day will be able to design a no less remarkable building. At the same time he loved computer science, not least because of the freedom and flexibility inherent in this field of studies. He imagined that one day will be able to take a leading position in top companies like Google. Parents wanted Joe involved in work related to computers - in fact at MIT learn not to become an architect? Nevertheless, he was very fond of the architecture.

Telling me about their dilemma, Joe desperately wringing his hands. He did not see any possibility to combine training in the field of computer science and architecture. To become an expert in the field of computers, it was necessary to study the algorithms, artificial Intelligence, Computer systems, circuits and electronics, signals, computing structures, as well as spend time laboratory work on programming. And in order to become an architect, he had to choose a very different courses: principles of architects, visual basics art, introduction to construction technology, computer design, history and theory of architecture, and should visit the architectural workshops.

How could he close the door in front of one of the areas of career? Began his studies of computer science, Joe could hardly study architecture in full and by the architecture, he would not have had time to computer science. At the same time, began to attend courses in both specialties, it is most likely could not get a degree for any of them after four years of study, and it would require another year (during which his training would be fully paid for parents). (He eventually graduated with a degree in computer science, but he was able to find the perfect combination - he began to design nuclear submarines for the Navy.)

A similar problem was and Dana, my other students - but in her case, the choice was between two boyfriends. She could devote all their energy and passion of the person with whom recently met and had hoped to build a strong relationship. Or it could continue to spend time and effort on your previous boyfriend, with whom relations are gradually faded. It was quite clear that the new friend liked it more than the old, but she could not stop at one stroke their previous relationship. In the meantime, I began to feel the impatience of her new friend. "Dana, and you really want to take the risk of losing the person you love, - I asked her - for the sake of illusory opportunities what ever fall in love with his former friend more than now? "She shook her head and muttered," no " I burst into tears.

What is the difficulty of choosing between the various options?

Why do we have to keep open the greatest possible number of doors, even paying a high price? Why can not we devote ourselves to one thing?

Trying to answer these questions, we Dzhivungom Sheen (professor at Yale University) invented a series of experiments which, as it seemed to us, will be able to help solve the dilemma facing Joe Dana. In this case, the experiment was based on the computer gameWhich, as we hoped, will help to eliminate some of the complexity of life and give us a straight answer to the question of why people tend too long to keep open too many doors. We called it "playing with the doors" and decided to send our players into a dark, gloomy place - the cave, which was reluctant to go even brave warriors army Xiang Yu.

* * *

MIT dormitory "East Campus" pretty strange place. It is home to hackers, hobbyists all mechanisms, hermits and cranks (and believe me, to have considered eccentric at MIT, still need to try very hard). In some areas allowed loud music, wild parties or even walk naked. Others like a magnet attracts engineering students and, therefore, made to mock anything - from bridges up roller coasters (if you happen to visit this room, click "Express pizza delivery" on the wall and through the freshly prepared pizza in minutes will be in front of you).

One evening, Kim, one of my assistants in the research, wandered through the corridors of the hostel with a clamped laptop under his arm. Looking into each room, she asked the students do not want those to earn some money by participating in small-scale experiments. If the answer was yes, Kim came into the room and found a (sometimes with difficulty) a blank space to put the laptop on it.

When the program is loaded on the computer screen appeared three doors: red, blue and green. Kim explained to the participants that they can enter into any of the three rooms (red, blue or green) by clicking on the image of the corresponding door.

Once students found themselves in a room, each press of the button brought them a certain amount of money.

If some room offered to get from 1 to 10 cents, then a certain amount of this range gives them each time you press the mouse button. As they advanced, the screen displays the amount of earned income.

Most of the money in this game you can winFinding the room with the highest gain and pressing the mouse button in it the maximum possible number of times. But the game was not so trivial. Every time you move from one room to another, you have used one touch (as much as you can press the button 100 times). On the one hand, a good strategy would be to move from one room to another in an attempt to find a room with a maximum win. On the other hand, hasty movement from one door to another (from one room to another) It means that you should not have spent their clicks and thus deprived of the possibility to earn more money.

The first participant of the experiment proved to be a violinist named Albert (who lived in the room "cult fans of the Dark Lord Krotusa"). He loved to compete, so I was determined to make this game most. At the first turn, he chose red door and into the room of the cubic form.

Once inside, he pressed the mouse button. The display will show the amount of 3.5 cents. He flipped over and was 4.1 cents. Pressing the third time, he got another 1 cent. He made a few more attempts, after which the interest was the green door. He clicked the mouse and eagerly entered.

In the new room, it was 3.7 cents for the first click, 5.8 cents per second and 6.5 in the third. The amount of his income in the bottom of the screen grew. It seemed that the green room is better than red, but what awaited him in the blue room? He clicked again to enter the last door and see what's behind it. Three pressing bring it about 4 cents. The game is not worth the candle. He hurried back to the green door and used here for all remaining attempts, which increased his winnings. In the end, Albert asked his result. Kim smiled and told him that while his result - one of the best.

Albert confirmed what we suspected, peculiar human behavior: Provided easy installation and a clear purpose (in this case consists in making money) we are able to find the source of our pleasure. If this experiment was carried out with appointmentThen Albert tried to meet with a girl, then another, and a third even be started an affair. Having tried all the options, he would come back to the best, with whom he stayed until the end of the game.

But let's face it, Albert was in the light conditions. While he "met" with the others, his former girlfriend patiently waited for him to come back into their arms. And if a girl, whom he despised, rejected him? Let's assume that the available opportunities before it would disappear steel. Albert would let them with a light heart, or have tried to keep to the last? Would he be willing to sacrifice part of their guaranteed win for the right to preserve options?

In 1941, the philosopher Erich Fromm wrote book "Escape from Freedom". He believed that in a modern democracy the people do not suffer from a lack of opportunities, and by their dizzying abundance. In our modern society this is the case. We are constantly reminded that we can do anything and be who we want to be. The only problem is how to make this dream a reality. We need to develop themselves in all directions; We must taste every aspect of our lives. We want to make sure that from 1000 things that everyone a person needs to have time to see before his death will overtake, we have not stopped at room 999. But then the question arises as to whether we too scatter? It seems to me that Fromm described the temptation is partly similar to what we observed in the behavior of our members, rushing from one door to another.

Escape from door to door is a rather strange occupation. But even more bizarre is our tendency to chase doors, which do not have to have special value: hidden behind them the possibility of little or no interest to us.

For example, my student Dana has already come to the conclusion that it does not make sense to continue the relationship with one of his buddies. So why is it jeopardizes relations with another man and continued to maintain contact with a less attractive partner? And how many times we ourselves buy something on sale, not because it was we really need, but only due to the fact that sale ends, and perhaps we have never been able to buy these things for as low prices?

* * *

The other side of this tragedy occurs when we can not understand that some of the really important things are to "close the doors" and therefore require our immediate attention. For example, we can carry on the work of more and more time, not realizing that the childhood of our children pass us by.

Sometimes the doors are closing slowly and we do not notice how they are reduced in size.

For example, one of my friends He told me that the best of all time his marriage was the year when he lived in New York, and his wife in Boston and they could meet only on weekends. Prior to that, as long as they both lived in Boston, they rarely spent a weekend together - often each was absorbed in his work. But when conditions have changed and they realized that the only time they can see each other - this weekend opportunities shrank themselves and become limited in time (their communication should end no later than the date of departure last train). Since it was clear that the clock is ticking, they decided to dedicate a weekend to each other, rather than work.

I'm not trying to convince you that you should give up work and stay at home to spend the maximum amount of time with their children. I do not urge couples to move to various cities in order to enjoy the joint output (although there are pluses in this situation). But how much it would be better if the inside of each of us there was a built-in alarm system that warns when door connected with the most important for us things are closed.

Dan Ariely - Duke University professor, an economist and expert in psychology. For many years, he studies how people behave in certain conditions. Due to their experiments and experiences of other scientists in the book "Predictably Irrational," Ariely It explains why we often act illogically, what this means and how to make the brain to take reasonable solutions.

To buy a book