{"id":736,"date":"2010-07-27T12:32:31","date_gmt":"2010-07-27T16:32:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/2d823b65bb.nxcli.io\/?p=736"},"modified":"2010-07-27T14:40:20","modified_gmt":"2010-07-27T18:40:20","slug":"value-of-restricting-choice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/2010\/07\/value-of-restricting-choice.html","title":{"rendered":"The value of restricting choice"},"content":{"rendered":"

The language game<\/h3>\n

Microsoft’s talking points go something like this (summarized in my words):<\/p>\n

If you adopt ODF instead of OOXML then you “restrict choice”.\u00a0 Why would you want to do that?\u00a0 You’re in favor of openness and competition, right?\u00a0 So naturally, you should favor choice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You can see a hundreds of variations on this theme, in Microsoft press releases, whitepapers,\u00a0 in press articles and blogged by astroturfers, by searching Google for “ODF restrict choice<\/a>“.<\/p>\n

This argument is quite effective, since it is plausible at first glance, and takes more than 15 seconds to refute.\u00a0 But the argument in the end fails by taking a very superficial view of “choice”, relying merely on the positive allure of its name, essentially using it as a talisman.\u00a0 But “choice” is more than just a pretty word.\u00a0 It means something.\u00a0 And if we dig a little deeper, at what the value of choice really is, the Microsoft argument falls apart.<\/p>\n

So let’s make an attempt to show how can one be in favor of choice, but also be in favor of eliminating choice.\u00a0 Let’s resolve the paradox.\u00a0 Personally I think this argument is too long, but maybe it will prompt someone to formulate it in a briefer form.<\/p>\n

Choice — the option to act<\/h3>\n

Choice is the option to act on one more possibilities.\u00a0 Choice is the freedom to take one path or another.\u00a0 Choice is the ability to open one door or another.\u00a0 And what is the value of choice?\u00a0 It depends on the value of the underlying possibilities.<\/p>\n

In some cases, the value of choice can be valued quite precisely.<\/p>\n

For example, imagine I have three boxes, one containing nothing, one containing $5 and another containing $10.\u00a0 If you have no choice, and are given one\u00a0 box at random, then you will get $5 on average.\u00a0\u00a0 And if given the choice of which box to pick, also without knowing the contents, you will also get $5 on average.<\/p>\n

Similarly, if each box contained exactly $5 and you could see inside, the value of choice would still be zero.<\/p>\n

But if the three boxes contained nothing, $5 and $10 and you could see inside<\/strong>, then the value of having a choice is clear.\u00a0 You would naturally pick the $10 box.\u00a0 So having a choice is worth an additional $5.<\/p>\n

So we see that for choice to have value, you must have two things:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. A way to estimate the value of outcome over another.<\/li>\n
  2. A preference for one outcome over another<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In some cases this can be done with precision.\u00a0 In other cases it can only be estimated or modeled. For example, trading stock options is essentially the selling and buying of the right to exercise the choice (option) to buy or sell a security at a given price within a given time period.\u00a0 The value of this choice can be modeled by sophisticated mathematical models like the Black-Scholes option pricing formula.<\/p>\n

    Eliminating choice<\/h3>\n

    So going back to the\u00a0 boxes again.\u00a0 Now imagine one has $10 in it, and the other has a note in it that requires that you pay me $10.\u00a0 You can see the contents of each box.\u00a0 Which one do you choose?\u00a0 It should be obvious, you pick the one with $10 in it.<\/p>\n

    But what if I say you are not limited to picking only one box.\u00a0 You can pick either box, or both boxes if you wish.\u00a0 You have absolute freedom to choose A, B or A+B.\u00a0 What do you do?\u00a0 Of course, you still pick the box with $10 in it.<\/p>\n

    But doesn’t that eliminate choice?\u00a0 Yes, of course it did.\u00a0 But the value of choice was only derived from the value of the underlying outcomes.\u00a0 By choosing, I’ve derived the full value of having a choice.\u00a0 Since if one choice is clearly more favorable than others (it “dominates” the others) then the alternatives should be discarded.<\/p>\n

    Resolving the paradox of the choice<\/h3>\n

    Give the choice of A, B or A+B, each are distinct, mutually exclusive choices.\u00a0 They are the three boxes with three outcomes.\u00a0 Each one has a value that could be estimated.\u00a0 When someone portrays option A+B as preserving choice, they are forgetting that this is a choice that also restricts choice, since it eliminates A or B in their exclusive, pure forms from consideration.\u00a0 Any choice, even the choice of A+B, restricts choice. \u00a0 If you choose A+B then you have not chosen A alone or B alone.\u00a0 You have the value of the outcome A+B, but do not have the possibly greater benefits of picking choice A alone or choice B alone.<\/p>\n

    Clear?\u00a0 I think this should be obvious, but I’ve seen these concepts cause much confusion.<\/p>\n

    It is also important to realize that the combination A+B may have conjoint effects, which may be neutral, synergistic or antagonistic.\u00a0 In other words the value of A+B is not necessarily the same as the value of A plus the value of B.<\/p>\n

    In some cases, certainly, the value of the A+B choice is the same as the sum of each individual values. For example, the boxes with money and notes, these are all simply additive, with no conjoint effects.<\/p>\n

    But in other cases, the value of A+B has synergistic effects.\u00a0\u00a0 For example, the choice of diet+exercise is more salubrious that either one chosen in isolation.<\/p>\n

    And in some cases the value of A+B is less than the value either one in isolation, as anyone who has bought both a cat and a dog knows.\u00a0 These choices are antagonistic.<\/p>\n

    So back to the file format debate.\u00a0 The choice here is between adopting ODF, OOXML, or ODF+OOXML.\u00a0 These three choice are mutually exclusive.\u00a0 They are the three boxes,\u00a0 with three different outcomes.\u00a0 Each outcome has a value that could be estimated.\u00a0 But we should not fall into the trap of thinking that an ODF+OOXML decision is preserving choice.\u00a0 Far from it.\u00a0 By making that choice, one eliminates the possibility of having only ODF, or of having only OOXML, with the resulting values that those choices would bring.\u00a0 Choosing both formats eliminates outcomes and restricts choice just has much as choosing only ODF eliminates outcomes.<\/p>\n

    You cannot avoid eliminating the outcomes you do not choose.\u00a0 There are benefits that would come from having only a single standard, and there are costs and complications from maintaining multiple standards.\u00a0 These must all be considered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The language game Microsoft’s talking points go something like this (summarized in my words): If you adopt ODF instead of OOXML then you “restrict choice”.\u00a0 Why would you want to do that?\u00a0 You’re in favor of openness and competition, right?\u00a0 So naturally, you should favor choice. You can see a hundreds of variations on this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9,6],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-736","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-odf","7":"category-ooxml","8":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/736","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=736"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/736\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1120,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/736\/revisions\/1120"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}