Standard economic theory implies that we maximize our happiness if we have more choices. Yet we limit our choices — impose self-control mechanisms — voluntarily in order to improve our well-being. For example, I just signed a book contract with a small advance payment.
I don’t need the extra money right now, but having taken the advance payment I know I’ll feel guilty if I don’t finish writing the manuscript by the contract deadline. So while the contract limits my freedom, I’ve chosen to limit my freedom of choice.
For another example: my daughter-in-law asked us to contribute to a fund-raising project. She’s trying to get several families involved
to raise enough money to obtain matching funds. My wife and I would be happy to contribute 2/3 of the total needed; but I’m mentally limiting our contribution to below 1/2, since we shouldn’t be the “majority stockholder” — I want to encourage other members to contribute.
I’m being manipulative, but I’m also manipulating myself and limiting my own choices. This kind of apparently restrictive behavior is everywhere — it’s the way we control urges that we know we shouldn’t indulge.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I must be thick or something. By deciding to take the book deal, you are making a choice. This choice includes the consequences you face as a result, which in turn result in choices, i.e. hand in that book or breach your contract. I think all you are doing is provide an incentive to yourself to action what you have decided (= write a book), which again was just your choice! And isn’t it just the nature of the choice process that we opt FOR something, thereby excluding other possible paths? To say you are limiting your choice by making choices seems like a bit of a tautology to me.
Funny. I’ve thought there was research going on suggesting that religous people and parents are more happy than others and my agnostic, fruitless self fancies the idea, that being religous or a parent is very much the defintion of having not much choice at all.
Who knows, maybe Classical Economic Theory is simply on the wrong track here. The implication comes from the highly fatous idea, that we want stuff because the stuff makes us happy. But experience of life tells us, that we want stuff because we assume it makes us happy and forget that this doesn’t always work. And some even believe that wanting stuff itself is a bad idea.
So maybe this is true: If you have everything you need, then it might be a good idea to limit all your choices if this ensures that you can keep it. Hence the tendency to incur in debts as soon as you found your place in life. Happiness is a warm bun.
“Standard economic theory implies that we maximize our happiness if we have more choices. Yet we limit our choices”
Contrary to what Dr. Hamermesh appears to believe, the notion that “the more choices we have the happier we are” does not conflict with the fact that we sometimes limit our choices.
Our happiness derives from our freedom to choose, and that includes the freedom to VOLUNTARILY limit our choices under many circumstances in manners that we see appropriate.
There is a big difference between voluntarily restricting ones’ choices in certain circumstances and having some 3rd party, e.g. the government, restrict one’s choices against one’s will.
Standard economic theory implies that the second kind of restriction is detrimental to the maximization of happiness, not the first kind.
I wonder how PDB read this blog and posted that comment sans internet? Self-manipulation or self-delusion? I like the idea in principle though!
“I hope for nothing, I fear nothing. I am free.” Kazantzakis
I am guessing here but PDB is a friend of Prof. Hamermesh. It is kind of extreme, but I am also thinking that PDB is Prof. Hamermesh’s daughter-in-law?
There have been quite a few studies in recent times on the so-called paralysing effect of choice. (There’s one article in particular that I’m thinking of, but I can’t find it; in the meantime this one will do: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/weekinreview/27port.html .)
The ironies of the modern world
@aml: Choosing to have children is the choice to add a restrictive third party into your life, isn’t it? But those who choose it usually draw more pleasure from the existence of their children, then they lost by limiting their choises, or giving up on the privious lifestyle.
I agree with Eva, in the sense that every choice is also “giving up” on the other options. But default is also a choice, and the joy drawn from a choice can be bigger than the joy lost over the loss of the other options.