The Paradox of Choice

People often say that brewing coffee with a good grinder is really something else.

Recently, I upgraded my coffee grinder to a Comandante MKIII. It opened up to me a new world of experiences and learning that I would have never imagined possible. I learned about particle size distributions, and the supposed ideal range of particle sizes for different brew methods - as always, it differs with taste preferences and individuals, but for pour overs, it would seem that particles ranging around 700 micron make for the common internet consensus.

With my new grinder that offers such a wide range of options - over thirty clicks at an estimated 30 micron differential per click on the standard clicker, the general impression that most people would get is that would form an upgrade in terms of experience right?

Well, not quite so. With the MKIII, the choices sometimes left me disoriented. How many clicks should I grind at today? How many clicks was I at again? Was the taste of my previous cup the best form of this coffee bean? Do I want to risk changing that taste profile?

On certain occasions, I actually found myself missing my good old grinder, which I was so used to and I knew exactly how to make a good cup of coffee with. The optionality in clicks were limited, so going above or under by simply 1 click meant a world of difference.

It also meant that the 'best' setting to brew my cup of coffee was also quite evident.

That really got me thinking about the paradox that came with the increased number of choices from my new grinder.

Paradox of Choice

In 2004, Barry Schwartz wrote about the paradox of choice in his book The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. The paradox of choice is the observation that a large amount of choice is commonly associated with freedom and satisfaction, but when in excess, rather than making people happy and ensuring they get what they want, can instead cause them stress and problematize decision-making.

Schwartz also went on to discuss two styles of decision making as identified by Herbert A. Simon in his 1956 co-published book Organizations, of maximizers and satsificers.

The portmanteau satisficer was created by combining the words 'satisfying' and 'sufficing'. Simon believed that the cognitive heuristic prevalent in satisfiers when they are presented with a decision to make, is that they will decide on a course of action that will satisfy the minimum requirements necessary to achieve that particular goal without exploring every alternative down to its end. Maximizers, on the other hand, also refine their options to those that will fulfill their essential needs, but subsequently consider every single option available to them, and pursue the one that will provide them with the greatest benefit and utility.

While it is true that maximizers have been shown to achieve better outcomes than satisfiers, at the same time, they are also more likely to experience lower levels of happiness and self-esteem. While a maximizing approach might seem more relatable and preferred in our hyper-efficient, information abundant world of today, perhaps we might be better off satisficing, and feeling content with what we have, rather than what we might have had.

Identifying Influences

A 2015 study published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis, found 4 factors that significantly influence the overload of choices that lead to this paradox. They are:

1. Greater Choice Set Complexity: When products are complex in nature

2. Higher Levels of Decision Task Difficulty: When its difficult to compare choices

3. Higher Preference Uncertainty: When preferences are unclear

4. Prominent Effort-Minimizing Decision Goals: When quick, easy choices is key

In the case of my grinder, this makes perfect sense.

Intricate scenarios (Choice Set Complexity) as often, one set of coffee beans might be better off in a different grind size when compared to another, and even when working with the same beans, two different grind sizes might yield two cups of different flavor, with neither lesser than the other.

Additionally, it is difficult to compare alternatives (Decision Task Difficulty) as I have no intention of brewing two cups with different grind sizes for a side-by-side comparison every single time, not whilst I drink these coffees by myself!

A Perspective

It feels like the paradox of choice has become such a maxim because we are always focused on achieving the best results, when in fact, what the plethora of choice proffers to us is the ability to experiment, and experience.

If the objective of us having more choices is so we try more, in search of the new "best" and "default" path for us to settle in on a new habitual normal, then it really defeats the purpose of having these increased choices. However, if what we are interested in is the cultivating of new experiences, then there isn't much that gets us stuck with choosing. Instead, we are happy simply because there is always a new thing to choose, a new experience to undertake.

With more choices, we owe the responsibility to keep experimenting and trying, and find the best that the choices have to offer with what we have at this point in time, never assuming that this "best" remains the same for long, all the while accumulating the new experiences from our choices.

Which brings us back to where we started, with the Comandante MKIII grinder.

With a better grinder, it doesn't necessarily mean better results. More choices result in more variance, and I feel that the upgrade is worth it, only if one are ready to accept a greater variance in experimentation for pursing a greater perfection of experiences.