Today I watched a TED talk video in class covering the paradox of choices. The speaker was Barry Schwartz and his argument was that with so many choices or options available to us in the world, we actually end up with little choice. One example of this was a comic/cartoon where a potential customer at a phone store asked the store rep if there was a phone for sale that didn't do too much. Barry's point was tackling western civilizations "dogma" that in order to maximize the welfare of citizens is to max individual freedom - and to max freedom is to max choice. However, he argued two main points that countered this dogma: Instead of choice making people feel more free, they instead become paralyzed and overwhelmed by their options - ultimately not choosing anything. The other point being that even if one does make a choice over something, he or she will have such high expectations of it that are never met. Leading to the person regretting their decision even if it had been the best decision possible. Resulting in unsatisfaction and unhappiness with one's self. I honestly thought the talk was a little suprising considering I had similar thoughts during the height of the Comcast/Time Warner merger issue and the FCC/Net Neutrality issue. I considered the idea - what if...We let communications companies merge. It would possibly allow people a simpler choice. A person wouldn't have to go back and forth between companies trying to figure out who is better than the other. But that is capitalism and laws were of course put in place so monopolies don't form (ideally. At least they are there on paper.). So my contemplating over telecommunication policies is probably far different than Barry's analogy of the customer in the phone store. As far as the topic of "choice" is concerned.