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?
Znate li koliko izbora učinite u jednom prosječnom danu? Znate li koliko izbora učinite u jednom prosječnom tjednu? Nedavno sam provela istraživanje na preko 2000 Amerikanaca i prosječan broj izbora koje učini prosječan Amerikanac je oko 70 u prosječnom danu. Nedavno je provedena studija u kojoj su sudjelovali izvršni direktori u kojoj su ih pratili cijeli tjedan. Ti su znanstvenici jednostavno dokumentirali sve različite zadatke u kojima su ti izvršni direktori sudjelovali i koliko su vremena proveli uključeni u donošenje odluka vezanih uz te zadatke. I otkriveno je da je prosječan izvršni direktor uključen u otprilike 139 zadataka kroz tjedan. Svaki zadatak, naravno, sastojao se od puno, puno, puno podizbora. 50 % njihovih izbora donešeno je u 9 minuta ili manje. Samo oko 12% izbora činili su u sat ili više svog vremena. Razmislite o svojim izborima. Znate li koliko izbora dospije u vašu kategoriju od devet minuta u odnosu na vašu kategoriju od jednog sata? Što mislite koliko ste dobri u donošenju tih odluka?
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.
Danas želim govoriti o jednom od najvećih problema koje imamo u vezi izbora danas, a to je problem preopterećenosti izborima. Želim govoriti o problemu i nekim mogućim rješenjima. Sada, dok govorim o ovom problemu, imat ću za vas neka pitanja i htjet ću znati vaše odgovore. Pa kada vam postavim pitanje, kako sam slijepa dignite ruku samo ako želite potrošiti par kalorija. (Smijeh) U protivnom, kada vam postavim pitanje i ako je odgovor da, voljela bih da zaplješćete. Moje je prvo pitanje za vas danas: Ljudi, jeste li spremni čuti nešto o problemu preopterećenosti izborima? (Pljesak) Hvala.
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.
Kada sam bila apsolvent na Sveučilištu Stanford, imala sam običaj ići u ovu vrlo, vrlo elitnu trgovinu namirnicama; bar je u to vrijeme bila istinski elitna. Bila je to trgovina zvana Draeger's. Sad, ta trgovina, bila je gotovo kao da idete u zabavni park. Imali su 250 različitih vrsta senfa i octa i preko 500 različitih vrsta voća i povrća i više od dvadeset različitih vrsta vode u bocama -- a to je bilo u vrijeme kad smo zapravo imali običaj piti vodu iz slavine. Voljela sam ići u tu trgovinu, ali jednom prilikom zapitala sam se kako to da nikada ništa ne kupim? Evo njihove police s maslinovim uljima. Imali su preko 75 različitih vrsta maslinovog ulja, uključujući i ona koja su bila u zaključanim kutijama, jer su napravljena od maslina s tisuću godina starih stabala.
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.
Jednog sam dana odlučila posjetiti voditelja i pitala sam ga "Da li ovaj model pružanja ljudima svih ovih izbora stvarno uspijeva?" On je pokazao u autobuse prepune turista koji će se pojaviti svaki dan, obično sa spremnim kamerama. Odlučili smo napraviti mali pokus i uzeli smo marmeladu za naš eksperiment. Ovo je njihova polica marmelade. Imali su 348 različitih vrsta marmelade. Postavili smo mali prostor za kušanje odmah pokraj ulaza u trgovinu. Tamo smo izložili šest različitih okusa marmelade ili 24 različita okusa marmelade i promatrali smo dvije stvari: Prvo, u kom slučaju su ljudi češće zastajali kušati uzorke marmelade? Više se ljudi zaustavilo kada je bilo 24 vrste, oko 60% a kad je bilo šest oko 40 %. Sljedeća stvar koju smo promatrali bila je u kom su slučaju ljudi češće kupovali staklenku marmelade. Sada smo uočili suprotan efekt. Od ljudi koji su stali kada je bilo izloženo 24, samo je 3% njih kupilo staklenku marmelade. Od ljudi koji su se zaustavili kada je bilo šest, pa, tu smo vidjeli da ih je 30% zaista kupilo staklenku marmelade. Ako to izračunate, ljudi su šest puta češće kupovali staklenku marmelade kada im je ponuđeno šest, nego kada su im ponuđene 24 vrste.
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.
Sada, odabrati ne kupiti staklenku marmelade vjerojatno je dobro za nas -- ako ništa drugo, dobro je za našu liniju -- ali čini se da ovaj problem preopterećenosti izborima utječe na nas čak i kod vrlo važnih odluka. Mi odabiremo ne odabrati, čak i kad to ide protiv našeg dobrog interesa. Pa zato, za današnju temu: financijske uštede. Sada ću vam prepričati istraživanje koje sam provela s Gurom Hubermanom, Emirom Kamenicom, Wei Jangom u kojem smo proučavali odluke vezane za mirovinsku štednju približno 1 000 000 Amerikanaca od oko 650 planova, svih u U.S. I ono što smo proučavali bilo je da li broj ponuda dostupnih u planu mirovinske štednje, 401(k) plan, utječe na vjerojatnost da ljudi štede više za budućnost. I otkrili smo da je uistinu postojala povezanost. U tim planovima, imali smo 657 planova koji su ljudima nudili različito, sve od dvije pa do 59 ponuda različitih fondova. I ono što smo otkrili bilo je da što je bilo više ponuđenih fondova, bio je uistinu manji postotak sudjelovanja.
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.
Pa ako pogledate ekstreme, oni planovi koji vam nude 2 fonda, udio sudjelovanja bio je oko sredine 70-og (percentila) -- i dalje ne tako visok kao što bismo željeli da bude. U onim planovima koji su nudili gotovo 60 fondova, postotak sudjelovanja pao je do oko 60-og percentila. Ispada da, čak i ako odlučite sudjelovati kada ima više mogućnosti izbora, čak i tada, postoje negativne posljedice. Dakle, za one ljude koji su odlučili sudjelovati, što je više dostupnih izbora, veća je vjerojatnost da će ljudi u potpunosti izbjegavati dionice ili dioničke fondove. Što je više izbora dostupno, veća je vjerojatnost da će uložiti sav svoj novac na obične račune. Sada, ni jedna od ovih ekstremnih odluka nije vrsta odluke koju bi itko od nas preporučio ljudima ako uzimate u obzir njihovu financijsku dobrobit u budućnosti.
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.
Pa, tijekom proteklog desetljeća, opazili smo tri glavne negativne posljedice kod nuđenja ljudima sve više i više izbora. Veća je vjerojatnost da će odgađati biranje -- odlagati čak i kada to ide protiv njihova najboljeg interesa. Veća je vjerojatnost da će donijeti lošije odluke -- gore financijske odluke, zdravstvene odluke. Oni su vjerojatnije birali stvari koje su ih činile manje zadovoljnima čak i kad su objektivno činili bolje. Glavni razlog ovoga je zato što mi možda i volimo gledati u te ogromne police majoneze, senfa, octa, marmelade, no mi zapravo ne možemo izvesti uspoređivanje i, zapravo, izabrati iz te zapanjujuće ponude. Dakle, što vam danas želim predložiti četiri su jednostavne tehnike -- tehnike koje smo testirali na ovaj ili onaj način u različitim istraživačkim nišama -- koje možete jednostavno upotrijebiti u svom poslovanju.
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.
Prva: Rezati. Čuli ste da se o ovom govorilo ranije, ali nikada nije bilo istinitije nego što je danas da je manje više. Ljudi se uvijek uznemire kad kažem: "Rezati." Uvijek su zabrinuti da će izgubiti prodajni prostor. No, ustvari, ono što viđamo sve više i više je da ako ste spremni rezati, riješiti se onih suvišnih nevažnih opcija pa, doći će do porasta u prodaji, smanjenja troškova, doći će do poboljšanja iskustva odabira. Kada je Proctor & Gamble prešao s 26 različitih vrsta Head & Shoulders-a (šampona) na 15, doživjeli su porast u prodaji za 10%. Kada se Golden Cat Corporation riješila 10 najslabije prodavanih prostirki za mačke, doživjeli su povećanje profita od 87% -- što je odraz i porasta u prodaji i smanjenja troškova. Znate, prosječna prodavaonica namirnica danas vam nudi 45 000 proizvoda. Tipičan Walmart danas vam nudi 100 000 proizvoda. Ali deveti najveći prodavač, deveti najveći prodavač u svijetu danas je Aldi i on vam nudi samo 1 400 proizvoda -- jednu vrstu konzerviranog sosa od rajčice.
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."
Sada, u financijskom svijetu štednje, mislim da je najbolji primjer koji se nedavno pojavio o tome kako se najbolje snaći u izboru ponuda zapravo nešto u čije stvaranje je bio jako upleten David Laibson. To je bio program koji imaju na Harvardu. Baš svaki zaposlenik na Harvardu sada je automatski uključen u fond životnog ciklusa. Onim ljudima koji doista žele izabrati dano je 20 fondova, ne 300 ili više fondova. Znate, ljudi često kažu "Ne znam kako rezati. Sve su to važni izbori." I prva stvar koju učinim je da pitam zaposlenike: "Recite mi kako su ti izbori različiti jedan od drugog. I ako ih vaši zaposlenici ne mogu razlikovati, ne mogu niti vaši potrošači."
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.
Prije nego što smo započeli naše predavanje ovog poslijepodneva, razgovarala sam s Garyem. I Gary je rekao da bi pristao ponuditi ljudima u publici besplatno putovanje sa svim plaćenim troškovima najljepšom cestom na svijetu. Evo opisa puta. I voljela bih da ga pročitate. Sad ću vam dati nekoliko trenutaka da ga pročitate i onda želim da zaplješćete ako ste spremni prihvatiti Garyevu ponudu. (Lagan pljesak) Dobro. Bilo tko tko želi pristati na njegovu ponudu. Je li to sve? Dobro, dopustite da vam pokažem malo više o ovome. (Smijeh) Znali ste da postoji trik, zar ne? (Truba) A tko je spreman ići na ovo putovanje? (Pljesak) (Smijeh) Mislim da sam zapravo čula više ruku.
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.
Dobro. Sada, zapravo, objektivno ate imali više informacija prvi put nego drugi put, ali ja bih se usudila nagađati da ste osjećali da je drugi put bilo realnije. Zato što su slike dale realniju predodžbu. Što me dovodi do druge tehnike za nošenje s problemom preopterećenosti izborima, a to je konkretizacija. Kako bi ljudi razumjeli razlike između izbora, moraju moći razumjeti posljedice povezane sa svakim izborom i da posljedice trebaju biti doživljene vrlo živopisno, na vrlo konkretan način. Zašto ljudi prosječno troše 15 -30% više kada koriste karticu za bankomat ili kreditnu karticu u odnosu na gotovinu? Zato što ih ne doživljavaju kao stvaran novac. I ispada da čineći da doživljavaju konkretnije može zapravo biti vrlo pozitivan alat koji se može iskoristiti kako bi ljudi više štedjeli.
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.
Tako istraživanje koje sam provela sa Shlomom Benartzijem i Alessandrom Previterom, proveli smo istraživanje s ljudima u ING-u -- zaposlenicima koji svi rade u ING-u -- i svi ti ljudi bili su u programu u kojem su se trebali upisati za svoj plan mirovinske štednje. Tijekom tog programa ostavili smo sve točno kako je i bilo, osim što smo dodali jednu sitnicu. Ta sitnica koju smo dodali bila je da smo pitali ljude jednostavno da razmisle o svim dobrim stvarima koje će se dogoditi u životu ako više uštediš. Čineći tu jednostavnu stvar, dogodilo se povećanje u upisu od 20% i došlo je do povećanja u broju ljudi spremnih na štednu ili količine koju su bili spremi uložiti na svoje štedne račune za 4%.
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.
Treća tehnika: Kategorizacija. Mi možemo baratati s većim brojem kategorija nego brojem izbora. Na primjer, evo istraživanja koje smo proveli na odjelu časopisa. Pokazalo se da u Wegmans trgovinama namirnicama uzduž sjeveroistočnog hodnika, police s novinama sadrže od 331 različitih vrsta časopisa pa sve do 664. Ali znate što? Ako vam pokažem 600 časopisa i podijelim ih u 10 kategorija, u odnosu na to da vam pokažem 400 časopisa i podijelim ih u 20 kategorija, vjerovat ćete da sam vam dala više izbora i bolju mogućnost izbora ako vam dam 400, nego ako vam ih dam 600. Zato što mi kategorije kažu kako da ih razlikujem.
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?
Tu sa dva različita pulta s nakitom. Jedan se zove "Jazz", a drugi je nazvan "Swing". Ako mislite da je pult s lijeva Swing, a pult s desna Jazz, zaplješćite. (Lagani pljesak) Ok, evo malo. Ako mislite da je ovaj s lijeva Jazz, a ovaj s desna Swing zaplješćite. Ok, malo bolje. Ispada da ste u pravu. Onaj s lijeva je Jazz, a onaj s desna je Swing, ali što zapravo znate? Ovo je krajnje neupotrebljiva shema kategorizacije. (Smijeh) Kategorije nešto trebaju reći onome tko bira, a ne biti razlog izbora. A često vidite taj problem kada dođe do onih dugih lista tih fondova. Koga bi oni zapravo trebali informirati?
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.
Moja četvrta tehnika: Uvjet za složenost. Ispada da zapravo možemo baratati s puno više informacija nego što mislimo da možemo, samo moramo sve malo pojednostaviti. Trebamo postepeno povećavati složenost. Pokazat ću vam jedan primjer onoga o čemu govorim. Uzmimo jednu vrlo, vrlo složenu odluku: kupovina auta. Imamo Njemačkog proizvođača auta koji vam daje priliku da u potpunosti odaberete svojstva svog auta. Trebate donijeti 60 različitih odluka kako biste do kraja "sastavili" svoj auto. Ove odluke variraju u broju mogućih izbora koje oni nude po jednoj odluci. Boja auta, vanjska boja auta -- imam 56 izbora. Motori, mjenjač -- četiri izbora. I sad ću varirati redoslijed kojim se ovi izbori pojavljuju. Polovica kupaca krenut će od složenijeg izbora, 56 boja za auto, prema jednostavnijem izboru, četiri mjenjača. Druga polovica kupaca ići će od jednostavnijeg izbora, četiri mjenjača prema 56 boja auta, složenijem izboru.
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.
Što ću ja promatrati? Koliko ste uključeni. Ako nastavite pritiskati zadani gumb za odluku, to znači da postajete preplavljeni, to znači da vas gubim. Ono što otkrijete jest da ljudi koji idu od složenijeg izbora prema jednostavinijem biraju zadani gumb opet i opet i opet iznova. Njih gubimo. Oni idu od jednostavnijeg izbora ka složenijem izboru, oni tamo zapnu. Informacija je ista. Isti je broj izbora. Jedina razlika koju sam napravila jest da sam varirala redoslijed kojim je ta informacija prikazana. Ako vas polagano uvodim, učite kako odabrati. Iako odabir mjenjača ne govori ništa o mojim izborima unutanjeg uređenja, svejedno me priprema na to kako izabrati. Također me čini uzbuđenom oko tog velikog proizvoda koji sastavljam pa sam više motivirana da se uključim.
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.
Dopustite da sažmem. Govorila sam o četiri tehnike za olakšavanje problema preopterećenosti izborima -- rezati -- oslobodite se nevažnih alternativa; konkretizirati -- učinite stvarnim; kategorizirati -- možemo baratati s više kategorija, manje izbora; uvjetovanje za kompleksnost. Sve ove tehnike koje sam vam danas opisala osmišljene su da vam pomognu upravljati izborima -- bolje za vas, možete ih koristiti za sebe, bolje za ljude s kojima radite. Zato što vjerujem da je ključ najveće dobiti od izbora u tome da budete izbirljivi kod biranja. Što više budemo izbirljivi kod biranja bolje ćemo moći prakticirati umjetnost biranja.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam puno.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)