Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I reject the hypothesis that this is a matter of irrationality. The error in this line of thinking lies with the fact that you have implicitly equated "have similar utility" with "have similar visible utility".

The reason "obvious" choices are "easy" is not because of the difference in actual utility, but because of the difference in "obviousness". I.e. it relates your observation to the probability that it does indeed relate to a difference in utility of not.

Therefore, two options with "similar visible utility" require more effort discerning whether the "actual" utility is also small, or you're about to make a very big mistake based on superficial notions of "no visible difference".

I content that given knowledge of actual equivalence, the paradox goes away and choices become trivial again.

A good example is phone contracts (at least in the UK). You'll spend far more time weighing options if they're bundled with all sorts of dark pattern magic like "first 3 months free then £X plus promo vouchers in select stores", compared to when you only have the annual price to compare between two choices. But it wouldn't matter if that price difference is £100 or £1.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: