Columns Voluntary restriction of options increases well-being – This is evidenced by the routine I started in 2015.

Voluntary delineation of alternatives increases well-being, writes Matti Tyynysniemi, a columnist at HS Vision.

Thus in January, it is not yet worth writing much about the lifestyle changes they have made, even if they are underway right now. Let’s watch from the end of spring, if the issue is still relevant.

However, a more general theme has long been central when I have been considering the use of time or the organization of life more generally. Constantly making choices in small things is stressful, and at least in my case, they are often bad. Voluntary reduction of options often seems to increase well-being. According to a familiar story, top executives always wear similar clothes so that decision-making energy is not wasted in the wardrobe.

My life has been less disciplined, but a weekly routine that has become quite a long one has the same idea.

When I listen to everything every week, regardless of the topic at hand, I’m a little better safe from my own preferences.

Since February 2015, I have been listening aloud to every issue of the British weekly The Economist, whose articles have also flickered on Helsingin Sanomat’s website at the beginning of the year. The weekly routine began shortly after I quit my job as a journalist, and there was less time to follow the world going as it became a leisure activity.

See also  Footage of the battle after which a schoolboy died in Pervouralsk

The audio version of the magazine will be published on Thursday evenings, and if there is enough time and especially homework, it can be ready even on Sunday. At its busiest, I only get to the end just before the next Thursday night, and in an emergency, I might jump over individual stuff from the back end. However, I avoid this very much, because then jumping breaks an important basic idea: I don’t make a choice in terms of content, I listen through everything that is offered from start to finish.

I am interested in many things, but I would be happy to know those who are less interested. Despite Western emphasis, The Economist is intended for a more global audience than most other magazines, and its sections cover the entire continent at a time.

When I listen to everything every week, regardless of the topic at hand, I’m a little better safe from my own preferences. Although I originally ended up with the audio version for time-consuming reasons, part of the charm has definitely been that compared to the paper or online version, the role of my choice is limited to the minimum level of concentration at which time it listens.

From a consumer perspective, I predict success for products and services that are limited enough to give a sense of control rather than a sense of inadequacy.

Hardly I’m the only one who’s basically very interested in fighting climate change, for example, but in practice he often turns the page on a difficult thing and prefers to read about the Corona Festival Boris Johnson in the yard. Even if I’m not much interested in the coffee business in Uganda or China’s monetary policy in advance, when I hear things, I get a feeling that someone other than me has chosen to listen to them.

See also  In Altai, the body of a two-year-old child was found in the river

Time is limited, so the routine I describe wouldn’t be possible if there weren’t enough stuff and length and an appearance only once a week. I could, in theory, also decide that I read every Hesar’s claim to the claim, but that would not be possible in practice. When I have a selection at the morning coffee table, the willpower is not enough to skip a story about a music album that came out in 1991, and to read some more recent cultural story in the time saved.

When there is really a lot to offer, it can be completely missed. I feel embarrassingly bad about modern TV series a lot because there are so many of them. If there were fewer must-see-level series, I would have pretty much found time to look at more of them.

I argue that it is precisely in terms of knowledge that human forces run out particularly easily.

I predict success for products and services that are limited enough to give a sense of control rather than a sense of inadequacy. Less can be more for more and more.

See also  Genoa, fatal illness outside the restaurant: regional councilor Sauro Manucci dies

In the matter however, there is also a broader societal perspective. When I am fascinated by the fact that there is no need to make an active choice in my The Economist routine, how much different is it from an American familiar with foreign news who gets his or her knowledge and opinion strongly from Fox News?

I argue that it is precisely in terms of knowledge that human forces run out particularly easily. A well-known concept on the subject is cognitive dissonance, that is, the fact that receiving information that is not suitable for one’s own preconception is mentally burdensome, and is often avoided.

Even if man does not have any particularly precise worldview to guard, I suspect that the virtually limitless supply of information and opinions may in itself cause exhaustion and backlash, with answers sought more strongly from a single door or at least from a strict group of like-minded people.

My weekly The Economist is perhaps in part an attempt to vaccinate myself against such a reaction by taking a controlled amount in a form deemed safe.

.
#Columns #Voluntary #restriction #options #increases #wellbeing #evidenced #routine #started

Related Posts

Next Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recommended