Buridan's Ass: Why One Good Option Is Better Than Two

Buridan’s ass is a paradox of free will. It originates from a hypothetical situation where a hungry and thirsty ass (donkey) is placed exactly midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the donkey wants both hay and water equally, it does of hunger since it cannot make a rational decision. A similar thing happens when two equally attractive alternatives are presented to us. We get into a state of decision paralysis where it is incredibly hard to take action, since both options are just as good. Like the starving ass, we get frozen in a state of doubt. Even lab rats experience difficulty when choosing between two equally attractive alternatives.

Except, of course, we don’t remain paralyzed forever. If, for example, a restaurant has two of our favorite meals, we might hesitate for a while. But that’s about it. We’ll still make a choice. The only problem is we will take unreasonably long to do so. It’s unreasonable because, if we like both dishes equally, this means each option will satisfy us just as much. In other words, it does not matter which we pick. So while it’s true that there is no rational basis to choose one over the other, there is no rational basis to choose neither, as well. And since human beings are not perfectly rational, we’ll get out of the hole of indecision sooner or later.

In real-world scenarios, decision-makers rely on randomness or slight biases to break the tie. Maybe you have run into such cases and flipped a coin or booted up a random number generator. While the paradox is a useful thought experiment, actual human decision-making is much more nuanced — subtle biases and external factors tip the scales. Buridan’s ass dumbs down decision-making by assuming absolute symmetry in our judgment. Whereas, in reality, even the tiniest differences influence a choice. The worst that’ll happen is procrastination and delay.

Real-world examples of Buridan’s ass:

• Consumerism: when shopping online, a consumer might face two nearly identical products with similar prices and features. They might get into decision paralysis, spending excessive time deliberating or defaulting to a random choice, even though subtle differences — shipping speed, brand reputation, reviews — will guide the decision.

• Career: an individual could receive two equally appealing job offers with similar salaries, benefits, and future prospects. The person will struggle to choose and delay their choice, potentially missing out on an opportunity if the others expire or if they become indecisive.

• Setting Priorities: a manager is faced with two projects that promise similar benefits and require comparable resources. With no clear differentiator, the manager will procrastinate or rely on a random decision-making tool, which may not exactly be aligned with the company’s strategic goals.

• Public Policy: legislators can encounter two policy proposals with equivalent merits, resulting in paralysis if no mechanism is in place to break the tie. This can result in a state of inaction, even when fast decisions are necessary for public welfare.

How to use Buridan’s ass as a mental model: (1) recognize paralysis — be aware of situations where options appear to be perfectly balance and seek out subtle factors that differentiate one over the other; (2) introduce tie-breakers — develop a mechanism to choose when you freeze, such as a predetermined rule (always the option on the right, always the option above, etc.) or random selection; (3) embrace imperfection — understand that in real-world situations, perfectly symmetrical goods are impossible, you just have to reframe the decision to reveal slight differences to tip the scale; (4) use a time limit — set a deadline for making a choice, from a few minutes for minor decisions and weeks for major ones.