Ved I, hvor mange valg, man træffer i løbet af en typisk dag? Ved I, hvor mange valg man træffer i løbet af en typisk uge? Jeg gennemførte for nylig en undersøgelse med over 2.000 amerikanerne, og det gennemsnitlige antal valg, som den typiske amerikaner siger, de træffer, er omkring 70 på en typisk dag. Der var for nylig også en undersøgelse med administrerende direktører, hvor man fulgte direktørerne i en hel uge. Og disse videnskabsfolk dokumenterede alle de forskellige opgaver, som disse direktører var med i, og hvor meget tid de brugte på beslutninger relateret til disse opgaver. Og de fandt, at den gennemsnitlige administrerende direktør deltog i omkring 139 opgaver på en uge. Hver opgave bestod naturligvis af mange, mange, mange små beslutninger. 50 procent af deres beslutninger blev foretaget på ni minutter eller mindre. Kun omkring 12 procent af beslutningerne tog en time eller mere af deres tid. Tænk over jeres egne valg. Ved I, hvor mange valg der ender i jeres ni-minutter kategori versus jeres én time kategori? Hvor godt synes I, at I klarer jeres valg?
Do you know how many choices you make in a typical day? Do you know how many choices you make in typical week? I recently did a survey with over 2,000 Americans, and the average number of choices that the typical American reports making is about 70 in a typical day. There was also recently a study done with CEOs in which they followed CEOs around for a whole week. And these scientists simply documented all the various tasks that these CEOs engaged in and how much time they spent engaging in making decisions related to these tasks. And they found that the average CEO engaged in about 139 tasks in a week. Each task was made up of many, many, many sub-choices of course. 50 percent of their decisions were made in nine minutes or less. Only about 12 percent of the decisions did they make an hour or more of their time. Think about your own choices. Do you know how many choices make it into your nine minute category versus your one hour category? How well do you think you're doing at managing those choices?
I dag vil jeg tale om ét af tidens største problemer mht. at træffe valg, nemlig det at have for mange valg. Jeg vil tale om problemet og nogle mulige løsninger. Når jeg nu taler om dette problem, har jeg nogle spørgsmål til jer, og jeg vil gerne høre jeres svar. Så når jeg stiller jer et spørgsmål, og siden jeg er blind, skal I kun række hånden op, hvis I vil brænde nogle kalorier af. (Latter) Ellers, når jeg stiller jer et spørgsmål, og hvis jeres svar er ja, vil jeg gerne have at I klapper i hænderne. Så til mit første spørgsmål til jer i dag: Er I klar til at høre om problemet med for mange valg? (Bifald) Tak.
Today I want to talk about one of the biggest modern day choosing problems that we have, which is the choice overload problem. I want to talk about the problem and some potential solutions. Now as I talk about this problem, I'm going to have some questions for you and I'm going to want to know your answers. So when I ask you a question, since I'm blind, only raise your hand if you want to burn off some calories. (Laughter) Otherwise, when I ask you a question, and if your answer is yes, I'd like you to clap your hands. So for my first question for you today: Are you guys ready to hear about the choice overload problem? (Applause) Thank you.
Da jeg var en specialestuderende ved Stanford University, plejede jeg at gå i dette meget, meget fornemme supermarked; på det tidspunkt var det i hvert fald virkelig fornemt. Butikken hed Draeger's. Denne butik, det var næsten ligesom at tage i forlystelsespark. De havde 250 forskellige slags sennep og eddike og mere end 500 forskellige slags frugt og grøntsager og mere end to dusin forskellige slags flaskevand -- og dette var i en tid, hvor vi faktisk plejede at drikke postevand. Jeg elskede at tage i den butik, men ved én lejlighed spurgte jeg mig selv, jamen, hvordan kan det være, du aldrig køber noget? Her er deres gang med olivenolie. De havde over 75 forskellige slags olivenolie, herunder dem der var i en kasse med lås, der kom fra tusind år gamle oliventræer.
So when I was a graduate student at Stanford University, I used to go to this very, very upscale grocery store; at least at that time it was truly upscale. It was a store called Draeger's. Now this store, it was almost like going to an amusement park. They had 250 different kinds of mustards and vinegars and over 500 different kinds of fruits and vegetables and more than two dozen different kinds of bottled water -- and this was during a time when we actually used to drink tap water. I used to love going to this store, but on one occasion I asked myself, well how come you never buy anything? Here's their olive oil aisle. They had over 75 different kinds of olive oil, including those that were in a locked case that came from thousand-year-old olive trees.
Så en dag besluttede jeg at tage en snak med bestyreren, og jeg spurgte bestyreren, "Denne måde at give folk alle disse valgmuligheder, virker det?" Og han pegede på de turistbusser fulde af turister, der kom hver eneste dag, som regel med kameraerne klar. Vi besluttede at lave et lille eksperiment, og vi valgte marmelade til vores eksperiment. Her er deres gang med marmelade. De havde 348 forskellige slags marmelade. Vi satte en lille bod med smagsprøver op lige i nærheden af indgangen til butikken. Vi opstillede enten seks smagsvarianter af marmelade eller 24 smagsvarianter af marmelade, og vi kiggede på to ting: Først, i hvilken situation var folk mest tilbøjelige til at stoppe, og smage noget marmelade? Flere mennesker stoppede når der var 24, omkring 60 procent, end når der var seks, omkring 40 procent. Det næste vi kiggede på er, i hvilken situation folk så var mest tilbøjelig til at købe et glas marmelade. Nu ser vi den modsatte virkning. Af de mennesker, der stoppede, når der var 24, købte faktisk kun tre procent af dem et glas marmelade. Af de mennesker, der stoppede, når der var seks, jamen der så vi, at 30 procent af dem faktisk købte et glas marmelade. Hvis man nu regner lidt på det, var folk mindst seks gange så tilbøjelige til at købte et glas marmelade, hvis de mødte seks, end hvis de mødte 24.
So I one day decided to pay a visit to the manager, and I asked the manager, "Is this model of offering people all this choice really working?" And he pointed to the busloads of tourists that would show up everyday, with cameras ready usually. We decided to do a little experiment, and we picked jam for our experiment. Here's their jam aisle. They had 348 different kinds of jam. We set up a little tasting booth right near the entrance of the store. We there put out six different flavors of jam or 24 different flavors of jam, and we looked at two things: First, in which case were people more likely to stop, sample some jam? More people stopped when there were 24, about 60 percent, than when there were six, about 40 percent. The next thing we looked at is in which case were people more likely to buy a jar of jam. Now we see the opposite effect. Of the people who stopped when there were 24, only three percent of them actually bought a jar of jam. Of the people who stopped when there were six, well now we saw that 30 percent of them actually bought a jar of jam. Now if you do the math, people were at least six times more likely to buy a jar of jam if they encountered six than if they encountered 24.
Men at vælge ikke at købe et glas marmelade er sandsynligvis godt for os -- det er i hvert fald godt for vores livvidde -- men det viser sig, at dette her problem med for mange valg påvirker os selv i meget betydningsfulde beslutninger. Vi vælger ikke at vælge, selv når det går imod vores bedste egeninteresser. Så nu til dagens emne: økonomiske besparelser. Nu vil jeg beskrive en undersøgelse for jer, som jeg gennemførte med Gur Huberman, Emir Kamenica, Wei Jang, hvor vi kiggede på beslutninger omkring pensionsopsparinger gjort af næsten en million amerikanere fra omkring 650 pensionsordninger alle i USA. Og det vi kiggede på, var om antallet af fondsudbud, der var tilgængelige i en pensionsopsparing, 401(k) planen, påvirker det sandsynligheden for at folk sparer mere sammen til i morgen. Og det vi fandt ud af var, at der faktisk var en sammenhæng. Så i disse pensionsordninger havde vi omkring 657 af dem, der spændte fra at tilbyde folk alt fra to til 59 forskellige fondsudbud. Og det vi fandt ud af var, at jo flere fonde, der udbydes, jo mindre var deltagelsen minsandten.
Now choosing not to buy a jar of jam is probably good for us -- at least it's good for our waistlines -- but it turns out that this choice overload problem affects us even in very consequential decisions. We choose not to choose, even when it goes against our best self-interests. So now for the topic of today: financial savings. Now I'm going to describe to you a study I did with Gur Huberman, Emir Kamenica, Wei Jang where we looked at the retirement savings decisions of nearly a million Americans from about 650 plans all in the U.S. And what we looked at was whether the number of fund offerings available in a retirement savings plan, the 401(k) plan, does that affect people's likelihood to save more for tomorrow. And what we found was that indeed there was a correlation. So in these plans, we had about 657 plans that ranged from offering people anywhere from two to 59 different fund offerings. And what we found was that, the more funds offered, indeed, there was less participation rate.
Så hvis man ser på ekstremerne, for de ordninger, der tilbød to fonde, lå deltagelsesfrekvensen på cirka midten af 70 procent -- stadig ikke så høj, som vi ønsker at den skal være. I disse ordninger, der tilbyder næsten 60 fonde, er deltagelsesfrekvensen nu faldet til omkring 60 procent. Nu viser det sig, at selv hvis man vælger at deltage, når der er flere valgmuligheder til stede, selv da, har det negative konsekvenser. Så for dem, der vælger at deltage, jo flere valgmuligheder der er, jo mere sandsynligt var det, at folk i det hele taget undgik aktier eller aktiefonde. Jo flere valgmuligheder, der var tilgængelige, jo mere sandsynligt var det, at de satte alle deres penge i rene pengemarkedskonti. Nu er ingen af disse ekstreme beslutninger den slags beslutninger, som nogen af os ville anbefale til mennesker, når man tænker på deres fremtidige økonomiske velfærd.
So if you look at the extremes, those plans that offered you two funds, participation rates were around in the mid-70s -- still not as high as we want it to be. In those plans that offered nearly 60 funds, participation rates have now dropped to about the 60th percentile. Now it turns out that even if you do choose to participate when there are more choices present, even then, it has negative consequences. So for those people who did choose to participate, the more choices available, the more likely people were to completely avoid stocks or equity funds. The more choices available, the more likely they were to put all their money in pure money market accounts. Now neither of these extreme decisions are the kinds of decisions that any of us would recommend for people when you're considering their future financial well-being.
I løbet af det seneste årti har vi observeret tre store negative konsekvenser ved at tilbyde folk flere og flere valgmuligheder. De er mere tilbøjelige til at forsinke det at vælge -- at udsætte, selv når det går imod deres bedste egeninteresse. Der er større sandsynlighed for, at de foretager dårligere beslutninger -- dårligere finansielle valg, medicinske valg. De er mere tilbøjelige til at vælge ting, der gør dem mindre tilfredse, selv når de objektivt gør det bedre. Hovedårsagen til dette er, at vi måske nyder at se på disse kæmpe vægge af mayonnaise, sennepper, eddiker, marmelader, men vi kan faktisk ikke finde ud af at sammenligne og kontrastere og at vælge noget fra den flotte udstilling. Så, hvad jeg vil foreslå jer i dag, er fire enkle teknikker -- teknikker, som vi har testet på den ene eller den anden måde i forskellige forsknings omgivelser -- som I let kan anvende i jeres virksomheder.
Well, over the past decade, we have observed three main negative consequences to offering people more and more choices. They're more likely to delay choosing -- procrastinate even when it goes against their best self-interest. They're more likely to make worse choices -- worse financial choices, medical choices. They're more likely to choose things that make them less satisfied, even when they do objectively better. The main reason for this is because, we might enjoy gazing at those giant walls of mayonnaises, mustards, vinegars, jams, but we can't actually do the math of comparing and contrasting and actually picking from that stunning display. So what I want to propose to you today are four simple techniques -- techniques that we have tested in one way or another in different research venues -- that you can easily apply in your businesses.
For det første: klippe. I har hørt det før, men det har aldrig været mere sandt end i dag, at mindre er mere. Folk bliver altid oprevet, når jeg siger, "Klip." De er altid bekymret over, at de kommer til at miste hyldeplads. Men hvad vi faktisk ser mere og mere er, at hvis man er villig til at klippe, at slippe af med disse irrelevante, overflødige muligheder, jamen så er der også en stigning i salget, der er en sænkning af omkostningerne, der er en forbedring i erfaringerne ved at vælge. Da Proctor & Gamble gik fra 26 forskellige slags Head & Shoulders til 15, oplevede de en stigning i salget på 10 procent. Da the Golden Cat Corporation fjernede 10 af deres dårligst sælgende kattegrus, oplevede de en stigning i overskuddet på 87 pct. -- en funktion af både en stigning i salget og en sænkning af omkostningerne. I ved, det gennemsnitlige supermarked i dag tilbyder omkring 45.000 produkter. Den typiske Walmart tilbyder i dag 100.000 produkter. Men den niende største detailhandler, den niende største detailhandler i verden i dag er Aldi, og de tilbyder kun 1.400 produkter -- en slags dåsetomatsauce.
The first: Cut. You've heard it said before, but it's never been more true than today, that less is more. People are always upset when I say, "Cut." They're always worried they're going to lose shelf space. But in fact, what we're seeing more and more is that if you are willing to cut, get rid of those extraneous redundant options, well there's an increase in sales, there's a lowering of costs, there is an improvement of the choosing experience. When Proctor & Gamble went from 26 different kinds of Head & Shoulders to 15, they saw an increase in sales by 10 percent. When the Golden Cat Corporation got rid of their 10 worst-selling cat litter products, they saw an increase in profits by 87 percent -- a function of both increase in sales and lowering of costs. You know, the average grocery store today offers you 45,000 products. The typical Walmart today offers you 100,000 products. But the ninth largest retailer, the ninth biggest retailer in the world today is Aldi, and it offers you only 1,400 products -- one kind of canned tomato sauce.
I den finansielle opsparingsverden synes jeg, at et af de bedste eksempler, der for nylig er kommet ud på hvordan man bedst administrere udvalget af tilbud, faktisk har været noget, som David Laibson var stærkt involveret i udformning af, hvilket var det program, de har på Harvard. Hver eneste Harvard medarbejder er nu automatisk tilmeldt i en livscyklus fond. For de mennesker, som faktisk vil vælge, de bliver givet 20 midler, ikke 300 eller flere midler. I ved, ofte, siger folk, "Jeg ved ikke, hvordan vi skal klippe. De er alle vigtige valg." Og det første, jeg gør, er, at jeg beder medarbejderne, "Fortæl mig, hvordan disse valg er forskellige fra hinanden. Og hvis dine medarbejdere ikke kan skelne dem fra hinanden, så kan dine forbrugere heller ikke."
Now in the financial savings world, I think one of the best examples that has recently come out on how to best manage the choice offerings has actually been something that David Laibson was heavily involved in designing, which was the program that they have at Harvard. Every single Harvard employee is now automatically enrolled in a lifecycle fund. For those people who actually want to choose, they're given 20 funds, not 300 or more funds. You know, often, people say, "I don't know how to cut. They're all important choices." And the first thing I do is I ask the employees, "Tell me how these choices are different from one another. And if your employees can't tell them apart, neither can your consumers."
Før vi begynder vores møde her i eftermiddag, havde jeg en snak med Gary. Og Gary sagde, at han ville være villig til at tilbyde tilskuerne i dette publikum en alle-udgifter-betalt gratis ferie til den smukkeste vej i verden. Her er en beskrivelse af vejen. Og jeg ville gerne have, at I læser den. Og nu giver jeg jer et par sekunder til at læse den, og derefter vil jeg gerne have, at I klapper i hænderne, hvis I er klar til at tage imod Garys tilbud. (Let bifald) Okay. Dem der er klar til at tage imod hans tilbud. Er det alle? Okay, lad mig vise jer noget mere om dette. (Latter) I vidste, der var et trick, gjorde I ikke. (Båt) Hvem er nu klar til at tage på denne rejse. (Bifald) (Latter) Jeg tror, at jeg måske har hørt flere hænder.
Now before we started our session this afternoon, I had a chat with Gary. And Gary said that he would be willing to offer people in this audience an all-expenses-paid free vacation to the most beautiful road in the world. Here's a description of the road. And I'd like you to read it. And now I'll give you a few seconds to read it and then I want you to clap your hands if you're ready to take Gary up on his offer. (Light clapping) Okay. Anybody who's ready to take him up on his offer. Is that all? All right, let me show you some more about this. (Laughter) You guys knew there was a trick, didn't you. (Honk) Now who's ready to go on this trip. (Applause) (Laughter) I think I might have actually heard more hands.
All right. Faktisk havde I objektivt flere oplysninger den første gang end den anden gang, men jeg vil vove at gætte, at I mente, at det var mere virkeligt anden gang. Fordi billederne gjorde følelsen mere virkelig for jer. Hvilket fører mig til den anden teknik til håndtering af overlæs af valg problemet, som er konkretisering. For at mennesker kan forstå forskellene mellem valgene, skal de kunne forstå konsekvenserne, der er knyttet til hvert valg, og at konsekvenserne skal mærkes på en livagtig måde, på en meget konkret måde. Hvorfor bruger mennesker i gennemsnit 15-30% mere, når de bruger et hævekort eller et kreditkort i modsætning til kontant? Fordi det ikke føles som rigtige penge. Og det viser sig, at få det til at føles mere konkret faktisk kan være et meget positivt værktøj at bruge, til at få folk til at spare mere.
All right. Now in fact, you had objectively more information the first time around than the second time around, but I would venture to guess that you felt that it was more real the second time around. Because the pictures made it feel more real to you. Which brings me to the second technique for handling the choice overload problem, which is concretization. That in order for people to understand the differences between the choices, they have to be able to understand the consequences associated with each choice, and that the consequences need to be felt in a vivid sort of way, in a very concrete way. Why do people spend an average of 15 to 30 percent more when they use an ATM card or a credit card as opposed to cash? Because it doesn't feel like real money. And it turns out that making it feel more concrete can actually be a very positive tool to use in getting people to save more.
En undersøgelse, som jeg gennemførte med Shlomo Benartzi og Alessandro Previtero, vi gennemførte en undersøgelse med folk hos ING -- medarbejdere, der alle arbejder på ING -- og disse mennesker var alle i et møde, hvor de laver indskrivning til deres 401(k) plan. Og under dette møde vi holdt mødet nøjagtig på samme måde, det plejer at være, men vi tilføjede en lille ting. Den lille ting, vi tilføjede, var, at vi bad folk tænke på alle de positive ting, der ville ske i deres liv, hvis de sparede mere. Ved at gøre den enkle ting var der en stigning i indskrivning på 20 procent, og der var en stigning i mængden af folk, der var villige til at spare, eller det beløb, som de var villige til at sætte ind på deres opsparingskonto med fire procent.
So a study that I did with Shlomo Benartzi and Alessandro Previtero, we did a study with people at ING -- employees that are all working at ING -- and now these people were all in a session where they're doing enrollment for their 401(k) plan. And during that session, we kept the session exactly the way it used to be, but we added one little thing. The one little thing we added was we asked people to just think about all the positive things that would happen in your life if you saved more. By doing that simple thing, there was an increase in enrollment by 20 percent and there was an increase in the amount of people willing to save or the amount that they were willing to put down into their savings account by four percent.
Den tredje teknik: Kategorisering. Vi kan håndtere flere kategorier, end vi kan håndtere valg. Så for eksempel her er en undersøgelse, vi gennemførte i supermarkedsgangen med magasiner. Det viser sig, at i Wegmans købmandsforretninger op af den nordøstlige korridor er der et stort magasin udvalg fra 331 forskellige slags magasiner helt op til 664. Men ved I hvad? Hvis jeg viser jer 600 magasiner og jeg deler dem op i 10 kategorier, kontra at jeg viser jer 400 blade og deler dem op i 20 kategorier, tror I at jeg har givet jer flere valg og en bedre vælgeroplevelse, hvis jeg gav jer 400, end hvis gav jeg jer 600. Fordi kategorierne fortæller mig, hvordan jeg skal kende dem fra hinanden.
The third technique: Categorization. We can handle more categories than we can handle choices. So for example, here's a study we did in a magazine aisle. It turns out that in Wegmans grocery stores up and down the northeast corridor, the magazine aisles range anywhere from 331 different kinds of magazines all the way up to 664. But you know what? If I show you 600 magazines and I divide them up into 10 categories, versus I show you 400 magazines and divide them up into 20 categories, you believe that I have given you more choice and a better choosing experience if I gave you the 400 than if I gave you the 600. Because the categories tell me how to tell them apart.
Her er to forskellige smykkeudstillinger. En kaldes "Jazz" og den anden kaldes "Swing." Hvis I tror udstillingen til venstre er Swing og udstillingen til højre er Jazz, så klap i jeres hænder. (Let applaus) Okay, der er nogle. Hvis I tror at den til venstre er Jazz og den til højre er Swing, klap i jeres hænder. Okay, lidt mere. Det viser sig, at I har ret. Den til venstre er Jazz, og den til højre er Swing, men ved I hvad? Dette er en meget ubrugelig kategoriseringsordning. (Latter) Kategorierne er nødt til at sige noget til vælgeren, ikke valgmageren. Og man ser ofte dette problem, når det kommer til disse lange lister af alle disse midler. Hvem er det egentlig, de skal informere?
Here are two different jewelry displays. One is called "Jazz" and the other one is called "Swing." If you think the display on the left is Swing and the display on the right is Jazz, clap your hands. (Light Clapping) Okay, there's some. If you think the one on the left is Jazz and the one on the right is Swing, clap your hands. Okay, a bit more. Now it turns out you're right. The one on the left is Jazz and the one on the right is Swing, but you know what? This is a highly useless categorization scheme. (Laughter) The categories need to say something to the chooser, not the choice-maker. And you often see that problem when it comes down to those long lists of all these funds. Who are they actually supposed to be informing?
Min fjerde teknik: tilvænning til kompleksitet. Det viser sig, at vi faktisk kan håndtere en masse flere oplysninger, end vi tror, vi kan, vi skal bare tage det lidt mere roligt. Vi skal gradvist øge kompleksiteten. Jeg vil vise jer et eksempel på, hvad jeg taler om. Lad os tage en meget, meget kompliceret beslutning: at købe en bil. Her er en tysk bilproducent, der giver mulighed for totalt at specialfremstille din bil. Man har at gøre med 60 forskellige beslutninger, lav din helt egen bil. Nu varierer disse beslutninger i antallet af valg, som de tilbyder pr. beslutning. Bil farver, udvendige bil farver -- Jeg har 56 valg. Motorer, gearskift -- fire valgmuligheder. Det jeg nu vil gøre er, at jeg vil variere den rækkefølge som disse beslutninger vises. Så halvdelen af kunderne vil gå fra mange valg, 56 bil farver, til få valg, fire gearskift. Den anden halvdel af kunderne vil gå fra få valg, fire gearskift, til 56 bil farver, mange valg.
My fourth technique: Condition for complexity. It turns out we can actually handle a lot more information than we think we can, we've just got to take it a little easier. We have to gradually increase the complexity. I'm going to show you one example of what I'm talking about. Let's take a very, very complicated decision: buying a car. Here's a German car manufacturer that gives you the opportunity to completely custom make your car. You've got to make 60 different decisions, completely make up your car. Now these decisions vary in the number of choices that they offer per decision. Car colors, exterior car colors -- I've got 56 choices. Engines, gearshift -- four choices. So now what I'm going to do is I'm going to vary the order in which these decisions appear. So half of the customers are going to go from high choice, 56 car colors, to low choice, four gearshifts. The other half of the customers are going to go from low choice, four gearshifts, to 56 car colors, high choice.
Hvad ønsker jeg at se på? Hvor engageret man er. Hvis man bliver ved med at trykke standardknappen ved hver beslutning, betyder det, at man er ved at blive overvældet, det betyder, jeg taber dig. Hvad vi ser er, at de mennesker, der går fra mange valg til få valg, de rammer standardknappen igen og igen og igen. Vi mister dem. De går fra få valg til mange valg, de hænger på. Det er de samme oplysninger. Det er det samme antal valg. Det eneste, jeg har gjort, er, jeg har varieret rækkefølgen, hvor oplysningerne præsenteres. Hvis jeg starter let, lærer jeg, hvordan man vælger. Selvom det at vælge gearskift ikke fortæller mig noget om min præferencer for indvendige indretning, forbereder det mig stadig til, hvordan jeg skal vælge. Det får mig også begejstret for dette store produkt, som jeg er ved at sammensætte, så jeg er mere villig til at være motiveret til at blive inddraget.
What am I going to look at? How engaged you are. If you keep hitting the default button per decision, that means you're getting overwhelmed, that means I'm losing you. What you find is the people who go from high choice to low choice, they're hitting that default button over and over and over again. We're losing them. They go from low choice to high choice, they're hanging in there. It's the same information. It's the same number of choices. The only thing that I have done is I have varied the order in which that information is presented. If I start you off easy, I learn how to choose. Even though choosing gearshift doesn't tell me anything about my preferences for interior decor, it still prepares me for how to choose. It also gets me excited about this big product that I'm putting together, so I'm more willing to be motivated to be engaged.
Så lad mig opsummere. Jeg har talt om fire teknikker til at dæmpe overlæs af valg problemet -- klippe -- slippe af irrelevante alternativer; konkretisere -- gøre det virkeligt; kategorisere -- vi kan håndtere flere kategorier, færre valg; tilvænning til kompleksitet. Alle disse teknikker, som jeg beskriver for jer i dag, er udviklet til at hjælpe jer med at administrere jeres valg -- bedre for jer, I kan bruge dem på jer selv, bedre for de personer, som I hjælper. Fordi jeg tror på, at nøglen til at få mest muligt ud af valg er at være selektiv om det at vælge. Og jo mere vi kan være selektive om at vælge, jo bedre vil vi kunne praktisere kunsten at vælge.
So let me recap. I have talked about four techniques for mitigating the problem of choice overload -- cut -- get rid of the extraneous alternatives; concretize -- make it real; categorize -- we can handle more categories, less choices; condition for complexity. All of these techniques that I'm describing to you today are designed to help you manage your choices -- better for you, you can use them on yourself, better for the people that you are serving. Because I believe that the key to getting the most from choice is to be choosy about choosing. And the more we're able to be choosy about choosing the better we will be able to practice the art of choosing.
Mange tak.
Thank you very much.
(Bifald)
(Applause)