Spices are a hopeless example of the paradox of choice, since they're all genuinely different things.
The kinds of choices I hate are the ones that have been deliberately and often artificially cooked up between things that are in essence the same -- or that I'd benefit from really being the same.
Two examples:
(1) Washing powder. My local supermarket has a whole aisle filled with essentially identical products in different packaging (many from the same manufacturer/conglomerate). Ironically, this proliferation of meaningless branding seems to push out genuine choice: despite the acres of shelf space devoted to washing powders, I can't buy an ecologically sound washing powder here.
(2) Travel insurance. The choices faced for insurance (and other financial products) are genuinely overwhelming: to sensibly choose between the hundreds of available policies I'd need to read and compare the T&Cs for each one. I'd enormously prefer there to be some central body mandating a minimum standard for travel insurance (or maybe 2 or 3 levels of minimum standards) and then just pick the cheapest policy adhering to my standard of choice.
In the absence of this, companies often appear to go out of their way to make it difficult to compare their products with others' -- mobile/cell-phone plans are a case in point here.
In short, the 'paradox of choice' should really be 'the paradox of pointless artificial choices'... but then it becomes more obvious that it's only a paradox if you were previously a sucker for economic theory at its purest and most crazy.
The problem is arguably not too many choices, but too many indistinct choices. This is something I've been banging on about from a game design perspective - having a dizzying array of skills or research options can be exciting, or it can be overwhelming and boring, depending on how each option is characterized and distinguished from the rest.
Less is only better insofar as it widens the "difference gap" between each option.
Why anyone would buy travel insurance is a mystery to me, but maybe you'd like http://www.insuremytrip.com/ which has a pretty nice comparison feature.
Why anyone would buy travel insurance is a mystery to me
Medical expenses, repatriation, accommodation in case of particular delays, emergency cash in case of theft.. I can't see why you wouldn't have it for any trip overseas given how unpredictable medical costs can be (unless you have a great existing policy that would cover all of these).
The kinds of choices I hate are the ones that have been deliberately and often artificially cooked up between things that are in essence the same -- or that I'd benefit from really being the same.
Two examples:
(1) Washing powder. My local supermarket has a whole aisle filled with essentially identical products in different packaging (many from the same manufacturer/conglomerate). Ironically, this proliferation of meaningless branding seems to push out genuine choice: despite the acres of shelf space devoted to washing powders, I can't buy an ecologically sound washing powder here.
(2) Travel insurance. The choices faced for insurance (and other financial products) are genuinely overwhelming: to sensibly choose between the hundreds of available policies I'd need to read and compare the T&Cs for each one. I'd enormously prefer there to be some central body mandating a minimum standard for travel insurance (or maybe 2 or 3 levels of minimum standards) and then just pick the cheapest policy adhering to my standard of choice.
In the absence of this, companies often appear to go out of their way to make it difficult to compare their products with others' -- mobile/cell-phone plans are a case in point here.
In short, the 'paradox of choice' should really be 'the paradox of pointless artificial choices'... but then it becomes more obvious that it's only a paradox if you were previously a sucker for economic theory at its purest and most crazy.