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?
Da li znate koliko izbora napravite u jednom običnom danu? Da li znate koliko izbora napravite u jednoj običnoj nedelji? Nedavno sam sprovela istraživanje koje je obuhvatalo preko 2000 Amerikanaca i prosečan broj izbora koje je običan Amerikanac prijavio da pravi, je oko 70 u običnom danu. Skoro je rađena studija sa izvršnim direktorima u kojoj su pratili izvršne direktore celu jednu nedelju. Ovi naučnici su dokumentovali sve različite zadatke u kojima su izvršni direktori učestvovali i koliko vremena su utrošili na proces donošenja odluka u vezi sa ovim zadacima. Otkrili su da je prosečni izvršni direktor uključen u oko 139 zadataka u toku nedelje. Svaki zadatak je sastavljen od mnogo, mnogo pod-izbora naravno. 50 procenata njihovih odluka je doneto u 9 minuta ili manje od toga. Za samo 12 procenata ovih odluka je trebalo sat vremena ili nešto više. Razmislite o svojim sopstvenim izborima. Da li znate koliko izbora načinite u toj kategoriji od devet minuta naspram onih koji vam oduzimaju po sat vremena? Šta mislite koliko se dobro snalazite u pravljenju tih izbora?
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 da pričam o jednom od najvećih današnjih problema po pitanju izbora koji imamo, a to je problem preopterećenja izborima. Želim da govorim o problemu i nekim potencijalnim rešenjima. Kada već govorim o problemu postaviću vam nekoliko pitanja i želim da znam vaše odgovore. Tako da kada vam postavim pitanje, s obzirom da sam slepa, podignite ruku samo ako želite da potrošite neku kaloriju. (Smeh) U drugom slučaju, kada vam postavim pitanje i ako je vaš odgovor da, želim da pljesnete rukama. Moje prvo pitanje za vas je: da li ste spremni da slušate o problemu preopterećenosti izborima? (Aplauz) Hvala vam.
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.
Na završnoj godini Univerziteta Stenford, imala sam običaj da idem u jednu veoma, veoma posećenu bakalnicu; bar je u to vreme bila jako posećena. Radnja se zvala Draeger's. Ova radnja više podseća na zabavni park. Imali su 250 raznih vrsta senfova i sirćeta i preko 500 raznih vrsta voća i povrća i više od dva tuceta različitih vrsta flaširane vode - a to je bilo u ono vreme kada sam imala običaj da pijem vodu sa česme. Volela sam da idem u ovu radnju, ali jednom prilikom sam se zapitala kako to da nikada ništa ne kupim? Ovde je deo sa maslinovim uljima. Imaju preko 75 različitih vrsta maslinovog ulja uključujući i ono u zaključanoj vitrini koje je dobijeno od hiljadu godina starih stabala masline.
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 dana sam odlučila da posetim menadžera i pitala sam ga: "Da li ovaj model ponude sa ovoliko izbora zaista funkcioniše?" On je pokazao na autobuse pune turista koji svakodnevno dolaze, sa već spremnim kamerama. Odlučili smo da izvedemo mali eksperiment, i izabrali smo džem za taj eksperiment. Ovo je njihov odeljak sa džemovima. Imaju 348 različitih vrsta džemova. Postavili smo mali štand za testiranje odmah pored ulaza u radnju. Stavili smo 6 različitih ukusa ili 24 različita ukusa džema, i pratili smo dve stvari: Prvo, u kom slučaju će ljudi biti zainteresovaniji da se zaustave i probaju džem? Više ljudi se zaustavilo kada je bilo 24 vrste, oko 60 procenata, a kada ih je bilo 6, oko 40 procenata. Sledeća stvar na koju smo obratili pažnju je u kom slučaju će ljudi radije kupiti teglu džema. Sada smo zapazili suprotan slučaj. Od judi koji su se zaustavili kada ih je bilo 24, samo je 3 procenta kupilo teglu džema. A kada ih je bilo 6, bilo je oko 30 procenata onih koji su stvarno kupili teglu džema. Ako izračunate, ljudi su najmanje 6 puta spremniji da kupe taglu džema ako su naišli na 6 nego na 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.
Izbor da se ne kupi tegla džema je verovatno dobar za nas - bar je dobar za našu kilažu - ali se ispostavilo da nas ovaj problem preopterećenosti izborima pogađa čak i kada su u pitanju veoma posledične odluke. Biramo da ne izaberemo čak i kada je to protivno našim najboljim interesima. Da pređemo na današnju temu: finansijska štednja. Sada ću vam objasniti studiju koju sam uradila sa Gurom Habermanom, Emirom Kamenicom, Vei Jangom, posmatrali smo odluke vezane za penzionu štednju skoro miliona Amerikanaca, iz oko 650 planova širom SAD-a. Obraćali smo pažnju na broj ponuđenih fondova dostupnih u planu penzione štednje, da li penzioni doprinos utiče na ljude da štede više za sutra. Ono što smo otkrili je to da zaista postoji korelacija. U ovim planovima, a imali smo ih oko 657, ponude su se kretale u rasponu od dva do čak 59 različitih fondova. A ono što smo otkrili je to da što je veća ponuda fondova, manji je stepen učešća u njima.
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.
Ako pogledamo krajnosti, u onim planovima koji nude dva fonda, stopa učešća u sredini oko sedamdeset posto - nije još uvek bila onako visoka kako smo želeli. U onim planovima koji nude oko 60 fondova, stopa učešća je sada pala na približno 60 posto. Ispostavilo se da i ako izaberete da učestvujete kada postoji više izbora, čak i tada, to ima negativne posledice. Za one ljude koji su izabrali da učestvuju što je više izbora ponuđeno, ljudi su bili zainteresovaniji da potpuno izbegnu akcije ili kapitalne fondove. Što je više izbora ponuđeno, veća je verovatnoća da će oni staviti sav svoj novac na obične račune. Ni jedna od ovih ekstremnih odluka nije ona vrsta odluke koju bi bilo ko od nas preporučio onim ljudima kojima želimo dobru finansijsku situaciju 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.
Tokom poslednje decenije uočili smo tri glavne negativne posledice prevelike ponude izbora. Oni će radije da odlože odlučivanje odugovlačiće, čak i kad je to suprotno njihovim najboljim interesima. Veća je verovatnoća da će napraviti lošije izbore - lošije finansijske izbore, zdravstvene izbore. Verovatnije je da će izabrati stvari koje ih čine manje zadovoljnim, čak i kada su one objektivno bolje. Glavni razlog za ovo je to što, iako možda uživamo da zurimo u one ogromne zidove majoneza, senfova, sirćeta, džemova, zapravo ne možemo matematički da uporedimo i napravimo izbor iz te zadivljujuće ponude. Zato bih vam danas predložila četiri jednostavne tehnike - tehnike koje smo isprobali na jedan ili drugi način na različitim istraživačkim mestima - koje možete jednostavno primenjivati u svom poslu.
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 je: rez. Čuli ste za ovo i ranije, ali to nikada nije bilo istinitije nego danas, manje je više. Ljudi su uvek uznemireni kada kažem "rez" . Uvek su zabrinuti da će izgubiti prostor na policama. Ali zapravo, ono što viđamo sve češće i češće je to, da ako ste voljni da napravite rez da se otarasite nebitnog viška opcija, desiće se povećanje prodaje, smanjivanje troškova i poboljšanje iskustva kada je biranje u pitanju. Kada je Proctor&Gamble smanjio broj vrsta Head&Shoulders sa 26 na 15, konstatovali su povećanje prodaje za 10 procenata. Kada se Golden Cat korporacija otarasila svojih 10 najmanje prodavanih proizvoda za mačke došlo je do povećanja profita za 87 procenata - a ovo povećava prodaju i smanjuje troškove. Znate, prosečna prodavnica danas vam nudi 45 000 proizvoda. Običan Walmart danas ima u ponudi preko 100 000 proizvoda. Ali deveta najveća trgovina na malo na svetu danas je Aldi, a on nudi samo 1 400 proizvoda - samo jednu vrstu paradajz sosa u konzervi.
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."
U svetu finansijske štednje, mislim da je jedan od najboljih primera koji se pojavio u skorije vreme kako je najbolje upravljati ponudom izbora, je nešto u čije je projektovanje uključen Dejvid Lajbson, je program koji su imali na Harvardu. Svaki zaposleni na Harvardu se sada automatski upisuje u fond životnog osiguranja. Onima koji žele da biraju, ponuđeno je 20 fondova, ne 300 ili više. Znate, ljudi često imaju običaj da kažu: "Ne znam kako da presečem. Sve su to jako bitni izbori." Prvo što uradim je da pitam zaposlene: "Recite mi kako se ovi izbori razlikuju jedni od drugih. Ako ih vaši zaposleni ne mogu razdvojiti, to ni vaši kupci ne mogu da učine."
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.
Pre nego što smo počeli popodnevnu sesiju, razgovorala sam sa Gerijem. Geri mi je rekao da bi bio voljan da ponudi ljudima u publici besplatan odmor sa svim plaćenim troškovima, na najlepšem putu na svetu. Ovo je opis puta. Volela bih da da ga pročitate. Daću vam nekoliko sekundi da ga pročitate, a onda želim da pljesnete rukama ako ste spremni da prihvatite Gerijevu ponudu. (Blago pljeskanje) U redu. Ko je spreman da prihvati njegovu ponudu? Da li je to sve? U redu, dozvolite mi da vam pokažem nešto više o tome. (Smeh) Znali ste da postoji neki trik, zar ne? (Trubljenje) Ko je sada spreman da ide na ovaj put? (Aplauz) (Smeh) Mislim da sam stvarno 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.
U redu. Sada zapravo imate objektivno više informacija prvog puta nego drugog puta, ali bih se usudila da pogađam da ste imali utisak da je mnogo realnije drugog puta. Zato što su slike učinile da sve to bude mnogo stvarnije za vas. Što me dovodi do druge tehnike za snalaženje sa problemom preopterećenja izborima, a to je konkretizacija. Da bi ljudi bolje razumeli razliku izmedu izbora, moraju biti sposobni da razumeju posledice povezane sa svakim izborom i to da posledice moraju biti shvaćene veoma živo, na veoma konkretan način. Zašto ljudi troše u proseku 15 do 30 procenata više kada koriste platnu karticu ili kreditnu karticu u odnosu na gotovinu? Zato što je ne doživljavamo kao pravi novac. Ispostavlja se da konkretnije doživljavanje zaista može da bude veoma dobar način da se ljudi navedu da štede više.
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.
Studija koju sam uradila sa Šlomom Benarcijem i Alesandrom Previterom, - uradili smo studiju sa ljudima u ING-u - sa zaposlenima koji rade u ING-u - svi ti ljudi su bili na sednici gde su popunjavali svoj penzioni plan. Tokom te sednice, držali smo sednicu na način kako je ona i ranije vođena, ali smo dodali jednu sitnicu. Sitnica koju smo dodali je da smo zamolili ljude da razmisle o svim pozitivnim stvarima koje im se mogu desiti ako uštede više. Uradivši tu prostu stvar, doveli smo do povećanja upisa za 20 procenata i došlo je do povećanja broja ljudi spremnih da štede ili iznosa koji su bili voljni da stave na svoj štedni račun za četiri procenta.
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. Možemo podneti više kategorija nego što možemo podneti izbora. Tako, na primer, ovde je studija koju smo uradili u odeljku časopisa. Ispostavilo se da u Vegmans prodavnicama uzduž i popreko severoistočnog koridora odeljci časopisa niču svuda, od 331 različite vrste časopisa sve do 664. Ali, znate šta? Ako vam pokažem 600 časopisa i podelim ih na 10 kategorija umesto da vam pokažem 400 časopisa i podelim ih na 20 kategorija, verovaćete da sam vam dala više izbora i više iskustva u biranju ako vam dam 400, nego ako vam dam 600 vrsta. Zato što mi kategorije govore 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?
Ovo su dva različita izloga sa nakitom. Jedan se zove "Džez", a drugi "Sving". Ako mislite da je izlog sa leve strane Sving, a izlog sa desne strane Džez, pljesnite rukama. (Blago pljeskanje) U redu, ima vas nekoliko. Ako mislite da je onaj sa leve strane Džez , a onaj sa desne Sving pljesnite rukama. U redu, malo vas je više. Ispostavilo se da ste u pravu. Sa leve strane je Džez, a sa desne je Sving, ali znate šta? Ovo je veoma nekorisna šema kategorizacije. (Smeh) Kategorije su potrebne da bi nešto rekle onome ko bira, a ne onom ko te izbore pravi. Često uviđate problem kada su u pitanju duge liste svih tih fondova. Koga bi oni zapravo trebalo da informišu?
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: uslov za složenost. Ispostavlja se da zapravo prihvatamo mnogo više informacija nego što mislimo da možemo, samo moramo sve to učiniti lakšim. Moramo postepeno da povećavamo kompleksnost. Pokazaću vam jedan primer ovoga o čemu govorim. Uzmimo kao primer jednu veoma, komplikovanu odluku: kupovinu auta. Ovo je nemački proizvođač automobila koji vam daje mogućnost da potpuno prilagodite svoj automobil. Morate da donesete 60 različitih odluka, koje potpuno čine vaš automobil. Ove odluke zavise od broja izbora koje će vam oni ponuditi po odluci. Boje automobila, spoljne boje - imam 56 mogućnosti da biram. Motori, menjači - 4 izbora. Ono što sada planiram da uradim je da promenim redosled pojavljivanja ovih odluka. Polovina kupaca će ići od najvećeg broja izbora, 56 boja auta, do najmanjeg broja, četiri menjača. Druga polovina kupaca će ići od najmanjeg broja izbora, četiri menjača do 56 boja za automobile, najvećeg broja izbora.
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.
Na šta ću ovde obratiti pažnju? Koliko ste angažovani. Ako pritiskate stalno isti taster po odluci, znači da postajete preplavljeni, znači da vas gubim. Ono što ćete uvideti je da ljudi koji kreću od više izbora ka manjem broju izbora pritiskaju osnovni taster iznova, iznova i iznova. Gubimo ih. Oni koji idu od manjeg broja izbora ka većem broju izbora, oni se drže. To je ista informacija. Isti broj izbora. Jedina stvar koju sam uradila je ta da sam promenila redosled kojim će te informacije biti predstavljene. Ako krenem od lakšeg, učim kako da izaberem. Čak iako biranje menjača ne govori ništa o mojim željama unutrašnjeg izgleda, ipak me priprema kako da izaberem. To me takođe uzbuđuje jer sastavljam taj veliki proizvod tako da sam spremnija da budem motivisana da budem angažovana.
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.
Dozvolite mi da ponovim. Govorila sam o četiri tehnike ublažavanja problema prezasićenosti izborima. rez - oslobađanje od suvišnih alternativa; konkretizacija - učinite to stvarnim; kategorizacija - možemo prihvatiti više kategorija, a manje izbora; uslov za složenost. Sve ove tehnike koje sam vam danas opisala su stvorene da izađete na kraj sa svojim izborima - bolje za vas, možete ih koristiti na sebi još bolje na ljudima za koje radite. Zato što verujem da je ključ izvlačenja maksimuma iz izbora biti izbirljiv po pitanju izbora. Što smo izbirljiviji po pitanju uzbora više ćemo biti u stanju da vežbamo umetnost biranja.
Thank you very much.
Mnogo vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)