The Illusion of Choice

Are those police boats?

INI logo - default, no tagline
Gob Bluth doing magic tricks

Welcome back.

Who wants to come help me drag the Halloween decorations out of the attic?

This week: It can be difficult as hell to understand when we don’t actually have a choice — and when we’ve got more options than we think. Deciphering the two is the key to the good stuff getting built way, way faster.

Did you know we record an audio version of all of our essays? Subscribe to our podcast feed and listen to this essay now 👇️ 

I’m Quinn Emmett, and this is science for people who give a shit.

Every week, I help 23,000+ humans understand and unfuck the rapidly changing world around us. It feels great, and we’d love for you to join us.

Why You're Here logo

New Shit Giver Laura wants to help solve “the lack/affordability of mental health resources, hunger insecurity, the current housing shortage and its effect on lower-income people, and where the political polarization of our country is going to take us.“

Yeah I think that sums it up pretty well, Laura. Let’s get to it!

Together With Bookshop

Want to read what the people working on the frontlines of the future are reading?

Every week, I ask our podcast guest, "What’s a book you’ve read this year that’s opened your mind to a topic you haven’t considered before, or that’s changed your thinking in some way?"

And every week, we add their picks to a list on Bookshop, where every purchase on the site financially supports independent bookstores.

Want an ad-free experience? Become a Member.\

THE ILLUSION OF CHOICE

Skipping for juuuuust a moment over the entire “does free will exist” conversation, because, as Oliver Burkeman wrote in The Guardian, “Peer over the precipice of the free will debate for a while, and you begin to appreciate how an already psychologically vulnerable person might be nudged into a breakdown.”

No thank you, not today. My Prozac has barely kicked in.

Not that some level of self-awareness isn’t great, obviously, but that’s 101 level stuff (I don’t keep cookies in our office for a reason), and so anyways, no, we’re not doing the Bereitschaftspotential right now.

But I do want to discuss how much more vulnerable you are than you think to the systems around us — and — plus! — on the other hand, how we have more power than we think to dismantle them to provide more choices for more people.

Earlier this year, I wrote a post called What Do You Need.

If you missed it, shame on you.

I’m kidding, though it’s worth reading the whole thing, and there’s a great WIRED post this week — by way of Google’s antitrust lawsuit they REALLY REALLY don’t you to know about — that expounds on my intro and thesis.

My original intro to What Do You Need, in February 2023:

In screenwriting, there is a well-honed idea that main characters should want one thing, but need something different, something that is often opposed to or even opposite their most public desires.

They are blind to what they need the most, and often purposefully so, having shoved those feelings down juuuuust about as far as they can go. Trust me when I say: having a long hard look at yourself isn’t easy, or comfortable.

So we empathize with these characters because, I mean, who amongst us, right?

It’s an imperfect character development mechanism, of course. The best characters aren’t that simple, and none of us are, either.

That said, history is littered with memorable characters who reluctantly go through transformations, who finally walk away from what they want and go through hell to get what they needed all along, letting us experience what it’s like to have that long hard look without actually having to, you know, do it.

Web search was intended to give us what we need, but over time the utility has been hijacked to give us what we want.

We need a real answer, but at this point search most often gives us what we want — self-affirmation — and if it’s delivered by a paid advertisement that looks just like a real answer, that’s even better.

That process, over and over, billions of times a day, leads to disinformation. Sometimes disinformation hurts one person, as we’ll see below, but at scale disinformation inevitably hurts many, many people.

Imagining that search could ever give us entirely objective answers, all of the time, ignores the web’s original sin — the web is only what we put into it, and we are fundamentally flawed.

The internet is so fundamentally broken that we desperately want the next thing — AI chatbots — to be everything, all at once.

But that’s even more dangerous because instead of your question returning a list of links ranked by Google, most of which are now paid ads, or a newsfeed of extreme views from friends and family on Facebook, a chatbot is an extremely convincing version of both.

It’s incredibly confident, and often very wrong. But we can’t tell the difference, and I’m not sure we want to.

I’m not going to spend today’s essay assessing the technological capabilities of search or new large language models, because that assessment will be old news almost immediately.

What I do want to do is try to force us to confront our wants and needs, to confront our expectations, borne of who we are — a construct that has remained the same for eons and underpins every single system we’ve ever built.

Now from WIRED (3 minute read) just this week:

Recently, a startling piece of information came to light in the ongoing antitrust case against Google. During one employee’s testimony, a key exhibit momentarily flashed on a projector. In the mostly closed trial, spectators like myself have only a few seconds to scribble down the contents of exhibits shown during public questioning.

Thus far, witnesses had dropped breadcrumbs hinting at the extent of Google’s drive to boost profits: a highly confidential effort called Project Mercury, urgent missives to “shake the sofa cushions” to generate more advertising revenue on the search engine results page (SERP), distressed emails about the sustained decline in the ad-triggering searches that generate most of Google’s money, recollections of how the executive team has long insisted that obscene corporate profit equals consumer good.

Now, the projector screen showed an internal Google slide about changes to its search algorithm.

This onscreen Google slide had to do with a “semantic matching” overhaul to its SERP algorithm. When you enter a query, you might expect a search engine to incorporate synonyms into the algorithm as well as text phrase pairings in natural language processing. But this overhaul went further, actually altering queries to generate more commercial results.

Google likely alters queries billions of times a day in trillions of different variations.

Here’s how it works. Say you search for “children’s clothing.” Google converts it, without your knowledge, to a search for “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear,” making a behind-the-scenes substitution of your actual query with a different query that just happens to generate more money for the company, and will generate results you weren’t searching for at all. It’s not possible for you to opt out of the substitution. If you don’t get the results you want, and you try to refine your query, you are wasting your time.

This is a twisted shopping mall you can’t escape.

Now some of you might say, “What the fuck?”

But some of you might say, “Quinn there is a difference between disinformation at scale and advertising” and — I’d question that because they’re on trial for a reason. Is disinformation not “false information that is intended to mislead”? Are they not changing your searches without telling you to extract more money but still make you think they’re fulfilling your original query?

Update: after that WIRED post, and my original, Charlie Warzel of The Atlantic followed up with Google who said the allegation was “flat-out false.”

But the WIRED author, former FTC attorney and former VP at DuckDuckGo Megan Gray, stood by her story — even though WIRED eventually took it down.

Per Charlie:

“Google may not be altering billions of queries in the manner that the Wired story suggests, but the company is constantly tweaking and ranking what we see, while injecting ads and proprietary widgets into our feed, thereby altering our experience.

…Perhaps the specifics of Gray’s essay were off, but we have learned, for instance, how company executives considered adjusting Google’s products to lead to more “monetizable queries.”

And just last week, the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against Amazon alleging anticompetitive practices. (Amazon has called the suit “misguided.”)

...We have the sense that we’re being manipulated because, well, we are. It’s a bit like feeling vaguely sick, going to the doctor, and receiving a blood-test result confirming that, yes, the malaise you experienced is actually an iron deficiency. It is the catharsis of, at long last, receiving a diagnosis.“

Anyways, to round it out, here’s the intro to a recent Ezra Klein post, mostly about productivity, but I think you’ll get the point:

Imagine I told you in 1970 that I was going to invent a wondrous tool. This new tool would make it possible for anyone with access — and most of humanity would have access — to quickly communicate and collaborate with anyone else. It would store nearly the sum of human knowledge and thought up to that point, and all of it would be searchable, sortable and portable. Text could be instantly translated from one language to another, news would be immediately available from all over the world, and it would take no longer for a scientist to download a journal paper from 15 years ago than to flip to an entry in the latest issue.

What would you have predicted this leap in information and communication and collaboration would do for humanity? How much faster would our economies grow?

Now imagine I told you that I was going to invent a sinister tool. (Perhaps, while telling you this, I would cackle.) As people used it, their attention spans would degrade, as the tool would constantly shift their focus, weakening their powers of concentration and contemplation. This tool would show people whatever it is they found most difficult to look away from — which would often be what was most threatening about the world, from the worst ideas of their political opponents to the deep injustices of their society. It would fit in their pockets and glow on their night stands and never truly be quiet; there would never be a moment when people could be free of the sense that the pile of messages and warnings and tasks needed to be checked.

What would you have thought this engine of distraction, division and cognitive fracture would do to humanity?

Again, the bulk of Ezra’s essay was about productivity, AI, and distraction, but point is: we were sold one thing, and we’re getting something entirely different.

It’s what always happens, because we’re programmed to keep doing this, and it’s what happens when we’re distracted.

It’s been this way since the beginning of time, really.

We often have the illusion of choice, when in reality we really don’t.

Our one harmless search of “nearly the sum of human knowledge and thought up to that point…searchable, sortable and portable” is an infinitesimal data point that wasn’t ever going to be answered the way we intended, before we ever searched for it.

This is actually just like the Bereitschaftspotential, so in reality (what is reality?), there’s no free will here (ok, sorry, I said I wasn’t going to do it).

Anyways, web search is one thing, but having an illusion of choice can, but not always, be much more dangerous offline.

On the other hand, the never-ending barrage of mis- or dis- or complete lack of information — or a Sisyphean stack of paperwork to keep you from getting answers or SNAP or citizenship, when it always seems so close.

Eventually, though, that whole process can really make you feel like “I don’t have a choice here.”

So which is it? 

Do we think we have more choice than we actually do?

Or do we believe we have no choice, when there are in fact opportunities to see what’s behind door number three?

Yes.

You’re told to eat healthy foods, but can’t access them or afford them. And we don’t really grow them anyways, and also we subsidize the unhealthy ones. The plants we do grow and subsidize use enormous amounts of water, and it all goes to cows, to be slaughtered for smash burgers, which impacts land-use and drives up methane and cardiovascular issues.

You’re told to ride your bike, but there’s no protected bike lanes in your town and trucks are only getting bigger.

You’re encouraged to vote, but every state has their own rules and the ones with the easiest ways to vote have the most civil rights, so there’s less of a desperate need to turn out, and they generally have better voting rights, too. In red states, they’ll do anything (anything) to make it harder for you to vote, so you don’t, or can’t.

You’re told that owning a house builds wealth, but four million houses don’t exist where they should, and the rest are unaffordable and uninsurable, or next to a fossil fuel refinery.

You’re told we have the best healthcare in the world, but it’s also unaffordable, and it’s actually not the best — not in the reactionary sense, and certainly not proactively, or around wellness.

If it was, our life expectancy wouldn’t be on a downward trend.

If it was, as famed urban planner Jeff Speck puts it, it wouldn’t be the case that “a lot of poor Americans who don't have cars, who are forced to walk and bike, are now living in the landscape that was designed with the presumption that no one would ever walk or bike.”

Meanwhile everyone who exclusively drives is on heart medication.

(more on both of these, below)

You’re told we need to have more babies, but they’re unaffordable, too, and sometimes you don’t want to or can’t have a baby for literally whatever reason — but in many states, you have to.

But, again, reminder ad nauseam — we have the illusion of choice because of other choices we’ve made in the past, or continue to make. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Often, our byzantine systems make us think we have no choice in the matter, when we actually do.

They just don’t want you to know that, much less take action on it. It’s not true for everyone and not in every situation, but the point remains — we can undo most of this bullshit and build something better.

Reputable sources of information and action — cough cough — can expand your horizons and unlock choices you didn’t know you had, and new ones for people who’ve never had any.

We can subsidize healthier foods (for us and the soil) and small, Black, Brown, and Indigenous farmers too.

We can make a standard for actually-protected bike lanes.

We can make Alabama — like actually make them — use voting maps that aren’t props from Watchmen.

We can educate, specifically train, and hire millions more rural blue-collar workers, so they can fix or build shit with their hands, improving their own incomes, health spans, and local economies. They shouldn’t have to go to the big city and/or college if they want to actually survive.

But that appears to be exactly the problem. From Dylan Matthews in Vox:

While it’s true that rich people in America live significantly longer than poor people, that’s much less true in New York City. It’s not true in California as a whole. Heavily urban areas with high education levels see a modest relationship between income and death rates. More-rural, less-educated areas, by contrast, see a very strong relationship between the two.

Areas with smaller mortality gaps tend to be places, the researchers find, with lower rates of smoking and higher rates of exercise, which makes sense when you consider that the variation in death rates between cities is driven not by factors like car crashes or suicide but conditions like heart disease and cancer, which are themselves driven in part by lifestyle conditions…

The middle-aged whites without high school diplomas Novosad and colleagues study have, however, seen their death rates from cancer, heart disease, and respiratory disease increase, while more-educated Americans have seen death rates from these diseases fall. A new investigation from the Washington Post similarly concludes that chronic conditions like heart disease and cancer are driving more of the life expectancy divide between rich and poor counties than factors like opioid overdoses or homicides.

It turns out some combination of healthy food, trade schools, seatbelts, free community college, Medicaid Or Medicare or Literally-Anything-With-Annual-Screenings-And-Affordable-Medication-for-All, affordable housing in walkable neighborhoods can save a shit load of lives.

Doing all of this will, in turn, actually make college degrees less valuable, because good jobs and not-poverty won’t require one (and a lifetime of debt) anymore.

After that? Encourage them to unionize.

Increased support for and participation in organized labor — which as you may have heard is both at its lowest participation levels ever AND having quite the Hot Labor Summer/Fall — can level the playing field, like UPS and the WGA and autoworkers and teachers have fought for time and time again.

Now these unions need to grow — themselves, to actually recruit and grow their own ranks — and show other workers how to do it.

Because when more people, especially young white males in red states, can get at least a high school degree, and then get work in more industries that don’t require a college degree, and then can unionize, they take back and build some equity and equality, driving down education deficits, cardiovascular disease, and so-called “deaths of despair”, which is actually “just” overdoses.

We can pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and others to make voting easier, which makes electing people who give a shit easier, people who are genuinely trying to make people’s lives better.

We can pass mandatory parental leave and sick leave, we can pass the child tax credit again, we can raise the minimum wage, and pass Medicaid for children everywhere.

We can trash racist zoning standards to build far more affordable, electrified homes.

We can build on IRA and make more drug makers negotiate with Medicare to lower drug prices, drugs we’ll need less of when there’s less cheap shitty food and more houses people can walk and bike to.

We can attend en masse “exceptionally white” public utility commission meetings and tell them to stop using our fucking money to lobby against solar power and transmission lines.

As my friend David Roberts at Volts fumed:

“There are many features of US public life that I believe, perhaps naively, would be the subject of a great deal more anger were they better understood.”

He continues, and you should listen to the whole thing, it will enrage you:

“(Utilities) are fighting against the clean-energy transition using your money. They use ratepayer money — from captive customers over whom they are granted a monopoly — to fund their lobbying. They have effectively conscripted their customers, who have no choice where to get their power and gas, into an involuntary small-donor army working against the public interest.”

Anyways we also don’t actually have to shut down nearly-perfectly safe nuclear plants that have been providing renewable power this entire time.

We can pop on over to our city council meeting and shake a stack of BioBot pamphlets at them, insisting we use what’s available to us to see the flu and COVID and other shit (literally) coming weeks before tests do.

You have choices.

Your kids/students/teachers/grandkids don’t actually have to get sick every fall. The federal government has thrown tens of billions of dollars at schools and offices to retrofit themselves for cleaner air. Hardly anyone’s used it.

But — and I can’t be clear enough about this — if you don’t show up at every school board meeting until they actually start doing the work, it’s not going to happen.

If you don’t show up at a city council meetings and public utility commission meetings and demand they use SolarAPP+, which is free, it’s going to continue to be extremely slow and expensive to get solar installed anywhere near you — on a house, on a school, in a field, whatever.

So maybe this is a lesson on control what you can control, and maybe it’s another screed about how gatekeeping between individual and systemic actions is bullshit. I empathize with either feeling — feeling helpless, or feeling like you’re always so close, but so far, like a toddler who cannot quite steer the spoon of pureed peas into their mouth.

Getting clarity on which is which is step number one. Figuring out what the hell you can do about it starts below. 👇

How To Give A Shit header

Last week’s most popular Action Step was volunteering to build a climate resilience hub in your community.

  • Donate to The Greenling Institute to help communities of color build wealth and live in healthier, climate-resilient communities.

  • Volunteer with People for Bikes to make biking better for everyone by improving infrastructure, advancing policy, and removing barriers to participation.

  • Get educated about funding opportunities in your state to hire more apprentices in your trade, or receive tuition support to enter a trade.

  • Be heard about increased access to EV charging infrastructure, and have your city sandbox a pilot with it’s electric.

  • Invest your money through an eco-friendly bank using Might Deposits bank comparison tool.

✏️ Go Deeper

  • 🕵️‍♂️ The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power by Shoshana Zuboff (Bookshop)

  • 🚶‍♀️ Walkable City by Jeff Speck (Bookshop)

  • 🚗 Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning, and Building for Healthy Communities by Richard Jackson, Howard Frumkin, and Lawrence Frank (Bookshop)

Get all of my book recs at Bookshop

🙋‍♀️ Today’s Poll

Does your company or organization already do or offer any sort of climate education, training, etc?

Login or Subscribe to participate in polls.


Support Our Work

INI is 100% independent and mostly reader-supported.

This newsletter is free, but to support our work, get my popular “Not Important” book, music, and tool recommendations, connect with other Shit Givers, and attend exclusive monthly live events, please consider becoming a paid Member.

Want to talk climate strategy, investing, or anything else?

Work with me 1:1

Want to sponsor the newsletter?

Get your brand, product, or service in front of 21,000+ sustainably-minded consumers:

Join the conversation

or to participate.