Originally posted in my old blog in September 2008
How many options are too many? How many are too few? I need enough to be able to choose, otherwise I feel like my life is static. Having too many options, though, is paralysis. Either extreme can be soul-crushing.
So, what is that number? Does it vary depending on what concrete situation the choices are for? Or is there some magical number that works for all situations, common and unusual, static and dynamic, social or business?
I believe the standard answer most people believe is three. This number has proven nursery rhyme, religious and commercial significance. Three wise men. Three blind mice. Holy Trinity. 3 point sermons. Get three estimates. Interview three candidates for any position. On and on. You get the idea.
Is this the test of time and contextual variety or just a convenient way to settle? Three does seem like the right number to get a decent variety and level set without requiring too much time and effort. Imagine substituting the number seven (another famous biblical number) for the examples above. Who needs seven blind mice when three will do just fine? Nevermind forty.
Why not two? There is still a choice and even less time and effort required to make the choice.
But somehow I feel cheated with only two choices. I can determine that one is better than the other. But there is that nagging feeling that if there was one more choice, it may have been better than the one of the two chosen. Or at least provide further confirmation that my choice was correct.
Ok, so, let’s assume that three has the nod. Does it work for dynamic as well as static situations? By static I mean this: You are presented with three choices. But once you make the choice, the other two go away and you live with the choice made for some duration of time, or eternity, whichever comes first.
A dynamic context is one in which there are always three choices that can be freely alternated, never together, but one at a time in any order you choose. Is three enough here? Is it too many? The challenge here is that the choices have to be sliced in between all other life obligations and not overlap. More than three might be a scheduling nightmare. Less than three might take away some of the life-zest to be had. If scheduling is not a problem, maybe more is better. Wealthy people who can offload or delegate the scheduling might argue for more. But here is the source of the other problem with the dynamic context.
Even if the scheduling problem is resolved. Even if you stick to three to five choices, does this diminish the satisfaction and limit the depth of enjoyment from each choice? Given infinite time, this may not be a concern. Here again, the idle rich have the leg up on us common folk. But given finite time to explore the set of dynamic choices, what is the optimum number?
I believe three is it. Hands down winner. If each choice is rich enough in diversity within itself, three can provide an ample overall variety and challenge for most human beings. Beyond that number the overhead of time scheduling and the dis-satisfaction of superficial experience outweighs any benefits that quantity can provide.
Should we do everything in threes? Probably not consciously. Being overly conscious of a rule will itself contribute to stagnation and lack of imagination. A healthy flexibility around the principle of three is best.
Happy optimizing :)
No comments:
Post a Comment