> one makes more money

There's this joke about a man in his 40s. He goes to the gym and asks the instructor which machine he should use to look more attractive to young ladies. The instructor looks at him and says "you'd do well by using the ATM outside".

When I was a kid, I had one video game and played it all the way through. When the system was emulated and access to every single game ever created became available, I lost interest.

Commonly called “analysis paralysis”. For most people, I believe, once you have more than a small number of options it’s basically impossible (or feels so) to analyze and compare all options to make what seems like a rational and logical decision. So some people will just get frustrated and pick one arbitrarily, or give up and pick none. A small number of people will make a spreadsheet and devote way too much time to over-analyzing the situation, and maybe never come to a satisfactory conclusion.

This applies to almost anything, even “which restaurant should we go to tonight?”

It's like making a spider web diagram for each person. Then calculating the area under the polygon to make a decision. With the vertices of diagram weighted by your preference vector. Under normal circumstances, majority can match with majority like a lock and key combintation. This could be the reason why arranged marriages work. I don't think evolution would care for 100% maximum compatibility as a target.

There's also something like a "market for lemons" effect where the best people (i.e. those most suitable for relationships and capable of sustaining them) tend to pair off and disappear from the market.

The paradox of choice feels like one of those concepts that sounds trivial until you live it. Dating apps amplify it to an absurd degree

> You introduce them to 100 attractive friends, one makes more money, one has a more stable job, one is flirtier, etc then it's both exhausting and none of them seem like a great opportunity.

And then there's "average person fallacy"

> You introduce them to 100 attractive friends, one makes more money, one has a more stable job, one is flirtier, etc then it's both exhausting and none of them seem like a great opportunity.

Me when shopping for camera lenses.

I think the secret is "clearly better than anyone I've got".

If I have nobody, and you introduce me to someone, then it's simple. They're absolutely worth pursuing.

If I have one or two "maybes", and you introduce me to someone, it's easy for them to be clearly better than anyone I've got, and therefore clearly "the one", at least the one to pursue right now.

But if you give me one hundred, then there probably isn't one of them that is clearly better than all the others. Hence, analysis paralysis.

> I think there are certain basic psychological facts that are anti-standard-economics that nerds (and therefore tech companies) almost always tend to be completely blind to. This is one of them.

I believe it's the opposite, they're exactly aware of this and have taken advantage of it to maximize engagement and profit, of course with the accompanying insanity, emotional burnout and further division/culture wars fuelling.

There is only one way to beat the paradox of choice: fall in love.

Then, it won’t matter that there are richer, more attractive, more intelligent options out there: you love what you love and that’s what you should pursue, and when you get it, that’s when you will know peace. It will feel like you won at life.

If people cannot overcome the paradox, it is because love in this world has become short in supply.