Part II: Decisions, Decisions

In Part I, I discussed my "no crap" philosophy, but now I'm going to look at some of the ramifications of that approach...

Today's (Friday) Wall Street Journal had an commentary piece entitled "The Joys of Workaholism" (although WSJ allows free access to most of their op/ed page, this column doesn't qualify). Here's a snippet:

I have always looked down on people who are addicted to work. As a group they don't admit to being happy... But they've never seemed wholly convincing to me in their unhappiness. And now I know their secret.

They're not unhappy at all. They've discovered a way to reduce one of the most stressful aspects of modern life: having to make a seemingly unlimited number of choices...

The column goes on mention the book "The Paradox of Choice", which centers on the idea that people are paralyzed by the multitude of choices they face, so the "freedom" is actually not.

This made me think about how I spend so much time looking for the best value and/or best deal. Months agonizing over the best car or the best way to deal with a home improvement project. Weeks over the best new piece of audio/video equipment. Concern over the proper investment strategy. And what takes all this time? The multitude of choice.

Two issues are at play here:

1. The array of choices leads to inaction, as there is doubt about what is the best decision
2. If you noticed, my philosophy is primarily centered on physical goods. Is it true (borrowing from Chuck Palahniuk) that our possessions end up owning us?

I am often crippled by 1 (always looking for more information), and give some credence to #2.

Returning to the WSJ article, the point, which is alluded to in the clip, is that by working so much, you have decisions made for you (you must finish this project, you attend this meeting, achieve this goal), or at the very least, the scope of options is limited. By spending more time "working", you have less time to "work" at life--decisions are abruptly made, or made for you; projects get put off, goals get delayed, and so on.

But I have plenty of time, and I've consciously decided to address the multitude of choices I/we have and direct my time to making what I hope are good decisions. But is my time time best spent on these decisions of consumption?

I don't feel like I'm owned by my possessions, but there is a certain amount of pride and/or self worth that I derive from what I own. How much of my propensity to want to host TV events, for example, because of the plasma is to gain affirmation for the purchase. Or is it my equivalent of Martin Prince's swimming pool?

After all, it is just stuff. The Atlantic ran a piece last year about the happiness derived from experience versus possession, and how the majority of people get more satisfaction of the former rather than the latter. But a lot of that preference, i think, stems from the idealization of the experience (a moment in time) versus the luster wearing off of possessions (them being taken for granted).

I can see how that can be misconstrued as me favoring possession over experience. I don't believe that's the case--it's just that the "who with" in the experience matters a lot more than the "what". Back in part I, I said i was cheap, so that makes me disinclined to assume the materials cost of experience when that cost is unnecessary to the interpersonal contact that results.

O.K., that was a couple of tangents too many and too focused on me, but there is a connection. Is it better to have passion and interest in many things (maximizing utility), or is it better at a certain point to select a couple of areas of interest, and then accept what is satisfactory (or acceptable) for the rest? And what does that continuum look like?