Reddit reviews Paradox of Choice, The

Yeaaaah.

If I may commend to you a book, The Paradox of Choice - it surveys a lot of the behavioral economic literature on choice and basically shows that the more choices people have, the more indecisive they are, and the less happy they are with their total outcome. Because you wind up thinking surely there is a "right" cleansing oil, or a "right" salad dressing to purchase. There isn't. (I explore many fewer options in almost all aspects of my life since reading that book).

People ask the kind of question you ask all the time and the only real answer, if you've read alllll the things, is to jump in the pool, get wet, and use that experience to inform the next purchase ;-)

Godspeed, friend. Report back when you've tried your cleanser!

I think that analysis paralysis is probably a problem to some degree for anyone who is Ji-dom or -aux. The reason I speculate this is that Ji functions are evaluating things internally based on subjective and personal criteria, without a specific goal at its aim. This is compared to having a focus on actively applying judgment criteria through acting on the external world (such as with Je). The combination of Pe and Ji would lead to that basic orientation away from taking action. I think the domain of indecision would be different, when analysis paralysis does become a problem for these types.

To a lesser degree, I would expect that Je-dom and -aux types may have some kind of indecision around the domain covered by their Ji function, when they're asked to perform in that domain. For instance, an INTJ may be comfortable coming to logical decisions about what actions to take, but may struggle painfully with indecision when it comes to finding a way to express deep feelings of affection and attachment and positive evaluation for someone they care about, particularly when they're feeling under pressure to show that feeling well (e.g., for a marriage proposal or an upcoming romantic holiday or vacation).

Barry Schwartz actually writes at length in the Paradox of Choice about the many features of our modern society of abundance that leads us to indecision and reduced satisfaction with our choices -- higher standards is one of them. If there are now 20 types of jeans instead of just 2, we now are trying to find a jean cut that fits us better -- there are 20 after all, there should be one that is even more perfect than the one we selected -- versus just picking between two options that we know won't be perfect. He also gave a TED Talk on the same topic that you may find interesting!

> Though I will say that a greater number of choices normally corellates with greater stress levels (I cannot find the research at the moment)

Barry Schwartz makes this argument in his book "Paradox of Choice: Why Less is More. The book summarizes research showing too many choices have a variety of negative effects on our emotional health. He gave a TED talk on the subject if you'd like a summary of the book.

Avoiding fragmenting the community is really important. You really don't want to have 10 different playlists at launch. Giving people more choices is not always a good thing. You really want to limit choices people have. Here is a great book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/The-Paradox-Choice-More-Less/dp/149151423X

So, launch the game with your typical halo fare:
Slayer / Lone Wolves / BTB / Objective / Breakout / Optional Rotational Playlist - Like Infection, team doubles, grifball, race

The many custom games of Halo over the years have all been fun community made games that came about through plain old organic creativity. Once the community gets their hands on forge, there will be some time to figure that stuff out. But at launch, I am of the opinion that the game types need to be limited to the stuff everyone loves about Halo.

You argument is based on a flaw premise though. For most of human history humans lived in communities numbering around 500. Very few of these would be people in the same state of life as life. As you.

Read up on the paradox of choice. http://www.amazon.com/The-Paradox-Choice-More-Less/dp/149151423X

Basically the more options you have the less likely you are to be happy with any of them.

http://smile.amazon.com/The-Paradox-Choice-More-Less/dp/149151423X?sa-no-redirect=1

or if you're up to it,

http://smile.amazon.com/Zen-Teaching-Huang-Po-Transmission/dp/0802150926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457650680&sr=1-1&keywords=huang+po

Makes me think of the Paradox of Choice.

I ran a pretty successful website for a while, but now that it makes a lot less money I'm looking for my next "calling" so I can relate. While I find a lot of interests appealing, there's no way to tell which is best for me. That's going to change based on so many factors such as family, relationships, health, boredom, etc. If there weren't so many options, I think it'd be easier to enjoy any given pursuit. My advice is to run a small number of projects simultaneously (2-3) until one takes off (either financially or emotionally).

Paradox of choice

https://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/149151423X

As an old guy... I know exactly how you feel... but honestly, it was me then, and it is you and me now that had / have the problem. Let me explain what I mean.

 

When I first started using Linux, there were no distros. You took the source on floppy disks and compiled it. Took me 3.5 days to compile the kernel on a 386SX with no math coprocessor. JUST THE KERNEL. Weeks for the whole OS. Then came all the distros. SLS / Slackware then the redhats and debians... now the ubuntu and mints. Mainly, they were about the packaging of other peoples code, very much like what is going on with ruby / python / go / rust. It was nice not having to compile it myself, but I had the The Paradox Of Choice to deal with. I have actually created packages with RPM and YUM and many others, just as I have created a ruby gem. They are a pain for the people using them to use on the consumer end, but much worse on the creators side. All of them were better at some things and worse at others, and people had a choice which they could use. It did fracture the community, but good of getting open source out there outweighed the bad of "too much choice".

 

BUT

 

If people did not share their code because they could not get their head around a particular packaging system, we all would have been worse off. With ruby, it is even more fundamental. If the crystal guys were to wait for Matz to approve this or that change, Crystal would never get anywhere. Same with mruby. Matz actually contributed his own money to the Crystal guys. You can't just do a "forklift upgrade" when you have millions of users like Python did with 2 -> 3 or javascript to the new es6. You loose people.

 

Yeah, it sucks in some ways, but is good in others. The pain just kinda sticks out a little more. Personally, I wish MERB was still it's own thing. I wish there was more diverse and more mature "fracturing" in the web framework space. I wish VOLT would get a new maintainer.

 

The big ideas like mruby / crystal / linux / whatever just need too much freedom and space in order to get a toe hold. Kinda like a little tree in an existing forest, they are just fighting for sunlight and their only hope is for an old tree to die.

 

Sorry for the long post, did not plan it that way ;)

&nbsp

TL;DR; Yeah it sucks, there are good parts too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/6y85qs/tinder_experiments_guys_unless_you_are_really_hot/

​

\>As a bi guy on tinder this definitely reflects my experience. I get a match with maybe 90% of the guys I like, with girls it's probably more like 2%.

​

\>I've never felt so lucky to be gay.

​

\>My girlfriends been doing some instagram work. Her conclusion?...girls are bitches. They require 10x the amount of work.

​

\>Tinder filters who sees you based on age too. They have openly talked shit about people over 30 using their app. Their reasoning is that they're probably less attractive and they want hot people using it for their brand image. That's why it costs more to buy 'plus' if you're over 30.

​

\>Online dating has probably been the most depressing thing I've ever tried to do in my life. Bar none.

​

\>Exactly.

\>It's a waste of time for guys to actually look at the pictures while swiping.

\>The best setup for Tinder would be to only let women swipe and then men would get a notification when a girl swipes on them. Then the guy is able to message the girl.

​

this is essentially a low-key "men have to be special in order to even talk to women" argument. Which Im sure they did not mean it at all that way but it did expose that. Completely.

​

\>I had a discussion with a friend about this. He used a few different dating systems and is a User Experience person. One of the things he noticed right away was that the use case for men and women was so drastically different and it really makes those platforms kind of shitty overall. Women can be and have to be very selective because they get bombarded with requests from men. Men increase their chances of meeting ANYONE by simply reaching out to everyone.

\>Then, once you actually get to the dating phase, the women continue to be selective. If the date isn't perfect, they have very little incentive to try again. Even moderately attractive women end up with a huge list of possible dates. Do I keep going with this guy or just go to the next one who might be THE ONE? Gone are the days where a decent date would get you one or two more.

​

the Paradox of choice.

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice

​

https://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/149151423X

​

And the data indicates the more choices people have, the less happy they are with what they have. Which may be why divorce rates are massive. If you think "I could've had that person instead", as if they're interchangeable toys, then why would someone be happy in that relationship?

​

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-and-sex-in-the-digital-age/201808/7-key-reasons-why-some-women-cheat

​

After all "I cheated in order to protect my marriage, not destroy it, because I was unhappy and felt I wasnt getting enough sex or emotional support".

​

Im sure you could figure out some incisive retort on this part of women's claims saying "you're not entitled to all the sex or emotional support you want from someone" the same way "men arent entitled to sex from women" has become so mainstream and even banal, today.

​

If you're actually using a dating site to find "love", gun picture removal is the least of your concerns.

​

Get some height, go to the gym, eat better, shave, get a 100$ haircut, some professional photo work, and then you might get a woman who's interest in you was because of your ability to mask your physical flaws and signal having excess money and time.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2015/12/25/rejection-and-physical-pain-are-the-same-to-your-brain/

If you enjoy the chronic punches on dating sites... I dont know what to tell you but sign up for some BDSM while you're at it.