What do you think?
Rate this book
Choosing Not to Choose: Understanding the Value of Choice
Our ability to make choices is fundamental to our sense of ourselves as human beings, and essential to the political values of freedom-protecting nations. Whom we love; where we work; how we spend our time; what we buy; such choices define us in the eyes of ourselves and others, and much blood and ink has been spilt to establish and protect our rights to make them freely.
Choice can also be a burden. Our cognitive capacity to research and make the best decisions is limited, so every active choice comes at a cost. In modern life the requirement to make active choices can often be overwhelming. So, across broad areas of our lives, from health plans to energy suppliers, many of us choose not to choose. By following our default options, we save ourselves the costs of making active choices. By setting those options, governments and corporations dictate the outcomes for when we decide by default. This is among the most significant ways in which they effect social change, yet we are just beginning to understand the power and impact of default rules. Many central questions remain unanswered: When should governments set such defaults, and when should they insist on active choices? How should such defaults be made? What makes some defaults successful while others fail?
Cass R. Sunstein has long been at the forefront of developing public policy and regulation to use government power to encourage people to make better decisions. In this major new book, Choosing Not to Choose, he presents his most complete argument yet for how we should understand the value of choice, and when and how we should enable people to choose not to choose.
The onset of big data gives corporations and governments the power to make ever more sophisticated decisions on our behalf, defaulting us to buy the goods we predictably want, or vote for the parties and policies we predictably support. As consumers we are starting to embrace the benefits this can bring. But should we? What will be the long-term effects of limiting our active choices on our agency? And can such personalized defaults be imported from the marketplace to politics and the law? Confronting the challenging future of data-driven decision-making, Sunstein presents a manifesto for how personalized defaults should be used to enhance, rather than restrict, our freedom and well-being.
Choice can also be a burden. Our cognitive capacity to research and make the best decisions is limited, so every active choice comes at a cost. In modern life the requirement to make active choices can often be overwhelming. So, across broad areas of our lives, from health plans to energy suppliers, many of us choose not to choose. By following our default options, we save ourselves the costs of making active choices. By setting those options, governments and corporations dictate the outcomes for when we decide by default. This is among the most significant ways in which they effect social change, yet we are just beginning to understand the power and impact of default rules. Many central questions remain unanswered: When should governments set such defaults, and when should they insist on active choices? How should such defaults be made? What makes some defaults successful while others fail?
Cass R. Sunstein has long been at the forefront of developing public policy and regulation to use government power to encourage people to make better decisions. In this major new book, Choosing Not to Choose, he presents his most complete argument yet for how we should understand the value of choice, and when and how we should enable people to choose not to choose.
The onset of big data gives corporations and governments the power to make ever more sophisticated decisions on our behalf, defaulting us to buy the goods we predictably want, or vote for the parties and policies we predictably support. As consumers we are starting to embrace the benefits this can bring. But should we? What will be the long-term effects of limiting our active choices on our agency? And can such personalized defaults be imported from the marketplace to politics and the law? Confronting the challenging future of data-driven decision-making, Sunstein presents a manifesto for how personalized defaults should be used to enhance, rather than restrict, our freedom and well-being.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published April 6, 2015
13 people are currently reading
336 people want to read
About the author
Cass R. Sunstein
166 books731 followersCass R. Sunstein is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School, where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Sunstein is currently Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he is on leave while working in the Obama administration.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
February 9, 2015
~3.5
Defaults matter. One of the most well-worn examples, used on the first day classes in everything from statistics to psychology, is that of organ donation. Over 98% of the populations of Austria, Belgium, France, Hungary, Poland, and Portugal are all organ donors. In Denmark, Germany, and the U.K, the percentage doesn’t top 20. Are the French simply more philanthropic than the British? Are Austrians really just better people than the Germans?
The answer is, of course, probably not. The 99%-countries all have organ donation chosen as the default, requiring citizens to explicitly opt out of the process. The others require their citizens to actually opt in.
Choosing Not to Choose explores the power and peril of defaults from the perspective of well-meaning “choice architects.” Sunstein explores the pros and cons of defaults and active choosing, the cognitive biases involved, and the promise and perils of personalized choice. He starts by arguing that defaults give us a way of “choosing not to choose,” and that this “second order decision” is vitally important. According to Sunstein, several studies indicate that the cognitive costs of choice have the most detrimental effects on the poor and stressed. At the same time, however, cognitive biases such as the endowment effect and inertia cause people to tend to stick with defaults, so it’s vitally important that the defaults don’t have their own detrimental effects.
I thought one of the most interesting parts was the section on active choosing. Active choosing, sometimes referred to as “forced choice,” is where the choice architect sets up a situation that necessitates an explicit decision between alternatives. Sunstein points out that active choices, are, in their way, as paternalistic as straightforward mandates: they withhold a desired outcome until the person capitulates and makes their choice. (I found the term ‘paternalism’ interesting in its own right, given its loaded and unacknowledged gender bias.) Active choosing isn’t always better because it usually requires either direct penalties (such as those imposed in the U.S. for not choosing health insurance) or leveraging (where a desired outcome such as a driver’s license is used to force someone to make an unrelated choice such as organ donation). Sometimes, the cognitive cost of choosing is prohibitive. For example, consider all those sites that force you to choose whether you want spam from them before you can sign up. Sure the choice is better than being defaulted into spam, but I’d much rather they defaulted me out and let me choose to receive their junk mail. Even so, they have their place, particularly when the choice architect is biased or lacking in information and defaults have the potential to cause harm. Sunstein also discusses problematic phenomenons such as “decision fatigue” and “reactance,” where peoples’ annoyance at the forced choice or even the default cause them to do the opposite of what they believe the choice architect desires. (Personally, I’m very prone to reactance.)
The last section is on personalized defaults. In describing personalized defaults, Sunstein says that “this idea may seem far-fetched, the stuff of science fiction,” but in my opinion, that’s only if you’re living in the past. Sunstein does do a good job discussing the dangers of narrowed perspectives and the potential for polarization. At the same time, he brings up an interesting point: in the case of high diversity, personalized defaults are often the best way to go.
The style is casual and conversational, and stays far on the “pop” side of the “pop science” spectrum. If you’ve taken a class in algorithmic game theory, then almost everything Sunstein says will seem rather obvious. (The entire issue can be put in terms of game theory: one must first decide upon a definition of the social welfare function, taking into consideration externalities as well as the way to summarize utility, then quantify the costs and “effort costs” of choices and the utilities of the outcomes. A choice architect is effectively trying to construct a stable coarse-correlated equilibrium.) Although interesting enough, the book isn’t all that information-heavy, and most of the book is merely a recapitulation of what Sunstein states in the first chapter. Sunstein’s argument is valuable, but I would have preferred a little more substance and a little less repetition.
My largest concern with the ideas presented was the implicit assumption that the information provided about the choices would itself be unbiased. Except for a brief section on “altering rules” (how people can change from the default) and “framing rules” (the “frames” used to convince people to opt in or opt out), Sunstein generally assumes that choice architects will be able to provide fair information about the choices. He asserts that defaults should always be “transparent and subject to scrutiny,” but I suspect that is itself close to impossible. One of the most provocative issues Sunstein discusses is the idea of “informed choice,” especially when one starts to consider the cognitive biases involved. As Sunstein points out, when one starts trying to define “informed” as the removal of cognitive biases, it’s far too easy to delude oneself that “informed” is thinking exactly like the choice architect.
Overall, if you're curious about the issues of defaults and choice, then I think Choosing Not to Choose makes for a pleasant companion read to other pop social science books such as Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow or Watts' Everything is Obvious Once You Know The Answer.
~~I received this ebook through Netgalley from the publisher, Oxford University Press, in exchange for my honest review.~~
Defaults matter. One of the most well-worn examples, used on the first day classes in everything from statistics to psychology, is that of organ donation. Over 98% of the populations of Austria, Belgium, France, Hungary, Poland, and Portugal are all organ donors. In Denmark, Germany, and the U.K, the percentage doesn’t top 20. Are the French simply more philanthropic than the British? Are Austrians really just better people than the Germans?
The answer is, of course, probably not. The 99%-countries all have organ donation chosen as the default, requiring citizens to explicitly opt out of the process. The others require their citizens to actually opt in.
Choosing Not to Choose explores the power and peril of defaults from the perspective of well-meaning “choice architects.” Sunstein explores the pros and cons of defaults and active choosing, the cognitive biases involved, and the promise and perils of personalized choice. He starts by arguing that defaults give us a way of “choosing not to choose,” and that this “second order decision” is vitally important. According to Sunstein, several studies indicate that the cognitive costs of choice have the most detrimental effects on the poor and stressed. At the same time, however, cognitive biases such as the endowment effect and inertia cause people to tend to stick with defaults, so it’s vitally important that the defaults don’t have their own detrimental effects.
I thought one of the most interesting parts was the section on active choosing. Active choosing, sometimes referred to as “forced choice,” is where the choice architect sets up a situation that necessitates an explicit decision between alternatives. Sunstein points out that active choices, are, in their way, as paternalistic as straightforward mandates: they withhold a desired outcome until the person capitulates and makes their choice. (I found the term ‘paternalism’ interesting in its own right, given its loaded and unacknowledged gender bias.) Active choosing isn’t always better because it usually requires either direct penalties (such as those imposed in the U.S. for not choosing health insurance) or leveraging (where a desired outcome such as a driver’s license is used to force someone to make an unrelated choice such as organ donation). Sometimes, the cognitive cost of choosing is prohibitive. For example, consider all those sites that force you to choose whether you want spam from them before you can sign up. Sure the choice is better than being defaulted into spam, but I’d much rather they defaulted me out and let me choose to receive their junk mail. Even so, they have their place, particularly when the choice architect is biased or lacking in information and defaults have the potential to cause harm. Sunstein also discusses problematic phenomenons such as “decision fatigue” and “reactance,” where peoples’ annoyance at the forced choice or even the default cause them to do the opposite of what they believe the choice architect desires. (Personally, I’m very prone to reactance.)
The last section is on personalized defaults. In describing personalized defaults, Sunstein says that “this idea may seem far-fetched, the stuff of science fiction,” but in my opinion, that’s only if you’re living in the past. Sunstein does do a good job discussing the dangers of narrowed perspectives and the potential for polarization. At the same time, he brings up an interesting point: in the case of high diversity, personalized defaults are often the best way to go.
The style is casual and conversational, and stays far on the “pop” side of the “pop science” spectrum. If you’ve taken a class in algorithmic game theory, then almost everything Sunstein says will seem rather obvious. (The entire issue can be put in terms of game theory: one must first decide upon a definition of the social welfare function, taking into consideration externalities as well as the way to summarize utility, then quantify the costs and “effort costs” of choices and the utilities of the outcomes. A choice architect is effectively trying to construct a stable coarse-correlated equilibrium.) Although interesting enough, the book isn’t all that information-heavy, and most of the book is merely a recapitulation of what Sunstein states in the first chapter. Sunstein’s argument is valuable, but I would have preferred a little more substance and a little less repetition.
My largest concern with the ideas presented was the implicit assumption that the information provided about the choices would itself be unbiased. Except for a brief section on “altering rules” (how people can change from the default) and “framing rules” (the “frames” used to convince people to opt in or opt out), Sunstein generally assumes that choice architects will be able to provide fair information about the choices. He asserts that defaults should always be “transparent and subject to scrutiny,” but I suspect that is itself close to impossible. One of the most provocative issues Sunstein discusses is the idea of “informed choice,” especially when one starts to consider the cognitive biases involved. As Sunstein points out, when one starts trying to define “informed” as the removal of cognitive biases, it’s far too easy to delude oneself that “informed” is thinking exactly like the choice architect.
Overall, if you're curious about the issues of defaults and choice, then I think Choosing Not to Choose makes for a pleasant companion read to other pop social science books such as Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow or Watts' Everything is Obvious Once You Know The Answer.
~~I received this ebook through Netgalley from the publisher, Oxford University Press, in exchange for my honest review.~~
January 3, 2021
The book spends 200ish pages discussing subtle variations on how people make choices, when they don't want to choose, when default choices are sensible (or not), whether personalized default choices are valuable, and so on. It's exactly the kind of book you'd pick up in an airport and lazily read through while you waited for the next 5 hours of your life to expire on an airplane.
If you've read Nudge, Misbehaving, or any other book on behavioral economics, you can pass on this book without missing anything.
If you've read Nudge, Misbehaving, or any other book on behavioral economics, you can pass on this book without missing anything.
November 25, 2017
Мне довольно сложно писать об этой книге. Как будто нужно написать о только что прочитанном руководстве к какому-нибудь видеомагнитофону. Или даже к автомобилю. Пожалуй, в этом году это одна из самых моих «долгих» книг. При своем небольшом объеме, я читал её чуть ли не несколько недель. А все почему? Да потому что в ней просто ужасный язык. Правда, я не могу с твердой уверенностью сказать, кто в этом виноват - автор или переводчики. Но только после её прочтения я осознал настоящее значение словосочетания «продираться сквозь текст».
И это действительно походило на поход сквозь джунгли. Множество вводных предложений, деепричастных оборотов, объемные предложения, какие-то сложные конструкции – это все здесь есть. И все это перепутано, как лианы. Предложение еще не успело закончится, а в нем уже промелькнуло несколько тем. Уже успели рассказать про людей, про их привычки, про тех, кто эти привычки создает и про то, как они формируются. А предложение еще даже не закончилось! Дочитал до точки и вынужден возвращаться к первому слову, чтобы вспомнить, а с чего оно начиналось. А потом еще предстоит разбить его на какие-то смысловые единицы. Так, ага, вот в этой части нам говорят о поведении людей, в этой – о том, как это поведение способствует выбору, а в этой – как нужно этот выбор стимулировать.
Уже понятно, что ни о какой легкости чтения здесь и речи не идет. Чтение превращается в монотонный труд, сходный с разгрузкой вагонов. Взял предложение, прочитал, попытался понять, за что тут ухватиться, взвалил, перетащил, опрокинул, пошел за следующим. С моей привычкой читать в метро – это вообще не вариант. Каждое предложение перечитывать по три раза – это перебор, конечно же.
Где-то тут надо уже задать мне вопрос – а зачем тогда ты эту книгу читал, раз все так плохо? Да просто потому, что… я вот в начале всего этого текста упоминал про инструкцию к автомобилю? Вот именно поэтому. Просто мне было интересно понять – как же все это работает. Ведь тема то в этой книге поднята очень интересная. Как сделать так, чтобы человек сделал тот или иной выбор. Не просто – как заставить человека выбирать тот или иной вариант. А более общий вопрос - почему все эти известные способы работают или наоборот не работают. Как сделать возможность выбора таковой, чтобы человек принял этот выбор, а не отвергал его в последствии. Чтобы он его осознал, или наоборот, не обратил внимания на то, что он только что выбрал.
Ведь по сути – выбор – это как раз то, что происходит с нами каждую секунду нашей жизни. И выбор – это даже не просто то или иное действие. Выбор – это еще и возможность выбирать. Можно выбирать, можно не выбирать. А можно понадеяться на то, что кто-то выбор сделает за вас. Стоит ли доверять этому кому-то? В чем минусы подобного выбора? В чем плюсы? Как их найти. Как самому формировать выбор для других людей. Хотим ли мы облегчить их жизнь, или наоборот – дать им максимально полный набор вариантов. Да, в последнем случае им придется сложно, но зато они будут довольны потому, что смогут выбрать лучший для себя. Или не будут? Или не смогут? Очень много интересных вариантов ответа на этот вопрос. И очень много полезной информации содержится в этой книге.
Но сразу предупреждаю, чтобы добраться до всего этого богатства, придется изрядно потрудиться. Перетаскивать те самые мешки, сопоставлять одно предложение с другим. Пытаться понять – откуда взялось то или иное вводное предложение, и где начинается одна, и заканчивается другая мысль. Еще очень желательно сидеть за этой книгой с ручкой и тетрадкой, чтобы как-то фиксировать все эти размышления, и распутывая клубок всех этих канцеляритов и околонаучных оборотов речи.
И это действительно походило на поход сквозь джунгли. Множество вводных предложений, деепричастных оборотов, объемные предложения, какие-то сложные конструкции – это все здесь есть. И все это перепутано, как лианы. Предложение еще не успело закончится, а в нем уже промелькнуло несколько тем. Уже успели рассказать про людей, про их привычки, про тех, кто эти привычки создает и про то, как они формируются. А предложение еще даже не закончилось! Дочитал до точки и вынужден возвращаться к первому слову, чтобы вспомнить, а с чего оно начиналось. А потом еще предстоит разбить его на какие-то смысловые единицы. Так, ага, вот в этой части нам говорят о поведении людей, в этой – о том, как это поведение способствует выбору, а в этой – как нужно этот выбор стимулировать.
Уже понятно, что ни о какой легкости чтения здесь и речи не идет. Чтение превращается в монотонный труд, сходный с разгрузкой вагонов. Взял предложение, прочитал, попытался понять, за что тут ухватиться, взвалил, перетащил, опрокинул, пошел за следующим. С моей привычкой читать в метро – это вообще не вариант. Каждое предложение перечитывать по три раза – это перебор, конечно же.
Где-то тут надо уже задать мне вопрос – а зачем тогда ты эту книгу читал, раз все так плохо? Да просто потому, что… я вот в начале всего этого текста упоминал про инструкцию к автомобилю? Вот именно поэтому. Просто мне было интересно понять – как же все это работает. Ведь тема то в этой книге поднята очень интересная. Как сделать так, чтобы человек сделал тот или иной выбор. Не просто – как заставить человека выбирать тот или иной вариант. А более общий вопрос - почему все эти известные способы работают или наоборот не работают. Как сделать возможность выбора таковой, чтобы человек принял этот выбор, а не отвергал его в последствии. Чтобы он его осознал, или наоборот, не обратил внимания на то, что он только что выбрал.
Ведь по сути – выбор – это как раз то, что происходит с нами каждую секунду нашей жизни. И выбор – это даже не просто то или иное действие. Выбор – это еще и возможность выбирать. Можно выбирать, можно не выбирать. А можно понадеяться на то, что кто-то выбор сделает за вас. Стоит ли доверять этому кому-то? В чем минусы подобного выбора? В чем плюсы? Как их найти. Как самому формировать выбор для других людей. Хотим ли мы облегчить их жизнь, или наоборот – дать им максимально полный набор вариантов. Да, в последнем случае им придется сложно, но зато они будут довольны потому, что смогут выбрать лучший для себя. Или не будут? Или не смогут? Очень много интересных вариантов ответа на этот вопрос. И очень много полезной информации содержится в этой книге.
Но сразу предупреждаю, чтобы добраться до всего этого богатства, придется изрядно потрудиться. Перетаскивать те самые мешки, сопоставлять одно предложение с другим. Пытаться понять – откуда взялось то или иное вводное предложение, и где начинается одна, и заканчивается другая мысль. Еще очень желательно сидеть за этой книгой с ручкой и тетрадкой, чтобы как-то фиксировать все эти размышления, и распутывая клубок всех этих канцеляритов и околонаучных оборотов речи.
May 29, 2018
An excellent book that is analysing in depth everything related to choices. It is hard to believe that such an important concept as the freedom to chose for which so many people fought in human history, is actually quite problematic in real day to day life. There are a lot of tricks concerning the psychology of choice and the book is analysing it, I agree though that the language used in the book is a bit academic and sometimes hard to understand for people new to the topic. The necessity to make the "perfect choice", the "cost" of the choice (responsibility linked to it and the time consumed) and the social pressure related to the made choice are causing anxiousness every time we are faced to a hard choice, so we are looking for ways to minimise the stress by limiting choices, by finding agents (consultants, doctors, sales agents) that we'll choose for us, by automation (apps and software). The last chapter fo the book is phenomenal because it was before the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the author is basically foreseeing the issues related to big data and its usage in business and politics. The topic is a part of behavioural economics as well and mentions other relevant concepts - loss aversion and cognitive biases used in this area. I good book for those that are not newbies to the topic of psychology and behavioural economics.
July 27, 2019
Sunstein continues to build on Nudge, his work with Thaler on behavioral economics. Here he advocates when it’s best to have impersonal default rules, active choosing or personal/tailored defaults.
The book raises many questions about the morality of handing agency to third parties to choose for us and the consequences/impact this can have on society.
The book raises many questions about the morality of handing agency to third parties to choose for us and the consequences/impact this can have on society.
April 11, 2021
Очень интересная тема. Стало понятно, что свобода выбора это на самом деле не так хорошо, как кажется в теории. Также понял, что хороший выбор, сделанный за тебя, обычно экономит время и помогает жить.
Четверка потому, что написано очень тяжело. Вроде бы маленькая книга, но читал я ее очень долго.
Четверка потому, что написано очень тяжело. Вроде бы маленькая книга, но читал я ее очень долго.
March 7, 2024
used it for my thesis really interesting stuff
Read
October 15, 2024Enjoyed learning about how affective choice options can help a business be more efficient for themselves and clients
September 17, 2022
Enjoyable book on choosing and how important they are in our lives. There are several really interesting examples.
May 27, 2015
Interesting Views on Choice
I had mostly considered mandates as bad, defaults as OK and free choice as the best. This book does not try to influence the reader about which is best, rather which may be best in various scenarios. It also discusses the pros and cons to each approach.
I still value free choice the best, even if people would choose poorly because I believe we learn and progress through mistakes. However, what happens if someone's poor choice harms another? That is where defaults and mandates may make sense.
There is no black and white answer for all situations; this book does not pretend there is. But it will help the reader think more critically about the pros and cons of framing choices differently.
I had mostly considered mandates as bad, defaults as OK and free choice as the best. This book does not try to influence the reader about which is best, rather which may be best in various scenarios. It also discusses the pros and cons to each approach.
I still value free choice the best, even if people would choose poorly because I believe we learn and progress through mistakes. However, what happens if someone's poor choice harms another? That is where defaults and mandates may make sense.
There is no black and white answer for all situations; this book does not pretend there is. But it will help the reader think more critically about the pros and cons of framing choices differently.
January 30, 2016
Starting off with a Section summarizing the points of Nudge, one of Sunstein's previous books, with some new examples. He then moves on to discuss the details of choice architecture: the different options for systems, the various pros and cons of each system, and based on those results when each option is optimal.
Good book for aspiring choice architects. Of course, there were parts I wish he'd addressed more fully, specifically the problem of 'bandwidth' and how create systems that don't by design disadvantage poor people and other oppressed groups (it gets maybe 3 pages total). And there were parts that felt repetitive, but I feel confident that's largely a reflection of my interests and my background.
Good book for aspiring choice architects. Of course, there were parts I wish he'd addressed more fully, specifically the problem of 'bandwidth' and how create systems that don't by design disadvantage poor people and other oppressed groups (it gets maybe 3 pages total). And there were parts that felt repetitive, but I feel confident that's largely a reflection of my interests and my background.
August 26, 2016
I never ever thought about this topic, and now it makes a lot of sense. It talkes about free choice, default inpersonal choices, and customized default choices. My take away is that this question comes up in every single policy and customer relationship topic in our work. A good choice proposal can save time, energy, make people happier, while the wrong proposal increases resistance and makes things faster. About the book itself: I found the first half super interesting, however, the second half, although it was equally well written, felt dry after some time. I missed graphics, charts, or any kind of visual representation. I think you can get the essence in from the conclusions chapter, and read here and there about a topic if you are more interested.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews