We have all been there: standing in aisle five of the supermarket trying to decide which jar of mustard to buy. Do we go organic, or for the brand with whole mustard seeds? Or do we simply pick the one in the brightest yellow bottle?

In a fascinating talk at TEDxStanford, “Sometimes it’s good to give up the driver’s seat,” marketing professor Baba Shiv reveals that discomfort over making choices extends into medical decisions. Five years ago, Shiv’s wife was diagnosed with breast cancer.

“The most harrowing and agonizing part of the whole experience was that we were making decision after decision,” Shiv shares in his talk. “The wisdom of the ages is that when it comes to decisions of importance, it’s best to be in charge. But are there contexts where we’re far better off taking the passenger seat and having someone else drive?”

Shiv decided to test the theory on undergraduate students about to solve word puzzles. While one set of students was asked to chose between two teas — caffeinated or relaxing chamomile — the other group was told by the researchers which of the teas to drink. In the end, the students assigned a tea solved more puzzles than those who were given a choice. Shiv hypothesized that this is because making the choice allows a person to have doubt about their decision when faced with the prospect of immediate feedback.

Shiv’s thoughts on choice are counterintuitive. But his work is part of a growing body of research on choice. Below, more studies — many from TED speakers — which suggest that having a variety of options isn’t always what we need.

In a jam
TED speaker Sheena Iyengar, a professor at Columbia University, performed a classic experiment in the realm of choice studies in 1995. In the study — which she describes in her TEDTalk “How to Make Choosing Easier” — Iyengar presented shoppers in a gourmet market with a display of jams. At times, the display showed 24 varieties. At others, it included only six. Iyengar found that, yes, 60 percent of customers found themselves pulled to the large display while only 40 percent stopped at the small one. But with 24 possible options, consumers questioned themselves and only 3% made a jam purchase. At the small display, nearly a third of consumers who stopped by bought a jar of jam.

The pasta problem
Malcolm Gladwell also thinks extensively about choice, and in his riveting TEDTalk “Malcolm Gladwell on spaghetti sauce,” he describes a visionary who anticipated Iyengar’s findings more than a decade before they were made. Howard Moskowitz, a psychophysicist turned market researcher, was asked by Prego spaghetti sauce in the early ‘80s to help them revise their product line. And thus Moskowitz headed out on the road with 45 pasta sauces, asking thousands of Americans to rate each one. But, using knowledge gleaned from working for brands like Pepsi and Vlassic Pickles, Moskowitz recommended that — rather than offering a large number of the top-rated varieties — Prego look for simple trends in the data. In the end, Prego added to a single variety to its product line — extra chunky. The company made $600 million by giving consumers a targeted choice rather than unlimited options.

Life and death decisions
Like Shiv, Iyengar recently moved her focus onto the weighty decisions made in hospitals. In her TEDTalk “Sheena Iyengar on the Art of Choosing,” she describes a study conducted on parents in both France and the United States who’d been faced with the horrible decision to take their infant off of life support. In the United States, this decision rests on the parents. However, in France, this decision is made by medical professionals. Iyengar and her fellow researchers looked at how the parents felt a year after in both countries. They found that while American parents harbored hugely negative emotions about the experience, the French parents were more able to reframe the tragedy with statements like, “Noah was here for so little time, but he taught us so much.” Still, American parents felt strongly that they would not have wanted their doctors to make the decision.

Financial times
In his blockbuster TEDTalk “Barry Schwartz on the paradox of choice,” the Swarthmore College professor quotes a study conducted by Iyengar and Emir Kamenica.  The pair looked at the retirement savings choices made by half a million employees through the Vanguard Group. Analyzing the data, the pair found that for every 10 additional funds offered to an employee, the chances that an employee would invest in none of the above increased by 2.87%. Schwartz explained the significance in his talk. “With 50 funds to choose from, it’s so damn hard to decide which fund to choose that you’ll just put it off until tomorrow. And then tomorrow, and then tomorrow,” he said. “By not participating, they are passing up as much as $5,000 a year from the employer.”

Mo’ money, mo’ problems
Schwartz mentions another favorite study in his talk, from independent analysis done by David G. Myers of Hope College and Robert E. Lane of Yale University. In looking at market data, the two found that — even though the gross domestic product had doubled in the United States over a 30-year period — the proportion of the population describing themselves as “very happy” had declined by about 5 percent. This doesn’t sound like a huge shift, but the translation shows the significance: when given far more choice in life, 14 million Americans reported feeling less happy than their peers 30 years before.

Last week, TEDTalks celebrated our 50 millionth view by counting down the Top 10 TEDTalks of all time (so far) — and inviting people to share their own favorites. Here are a few:

My favorite is still Susan Savage-Rumbaugh and those bonobo apes.
– S.F., Boynton Beach, Florida

Stamets (mushrooms), Isabel Allende (passion), Dave Eggers (schools), and Ballard (ocean) — not to be missed.
– Marian Angele

Majora Carter’s talk on her environmental work in the Bronx.
– lydia chadwick

Majora Carter‘s is my absolute favorite!
– Ariel, a TED fan

I am dropping a line to say how much I enjoyed Aubrey de Grey’s speech on aging.
– Diana Pasley

I think Malcom Gladwell is that hidden gem.
– +Jono

I nominate Theo Jansen’s talk on creating new creatures as one of the “Hidden Gems.”
– Paul

If your own favorite TEDTalks aren’t on the Top 10 list yet — or you’d like to share your own hidden gems — write to us at contact@ted.com or post a comment.

Although the men and women on this list are some of the world’s most sophisticated thinkers, the criteria to make the list could not be more simple. Candidates must be living and still active in public life. They must have shown distinction in their particular field as well as an ability to influence wider debate, often far beyond the borders of their own country.

TEDTalks speakers on this top 100 list include George Ayittey, Steven Pinker, Neil Gershenfeld, Malcolm Gladwell, Craig Venter, Al Gore, Richard Dawkins, Vilayanur Ramachandran, Larry Lessig, Steven Levitt, E.O. Wilson, Dan Dennett and Bjorn Lomborg — and look for upcoming TEDTalks from others on this list, including Paul Collier, who spoke at TED2008 about “the bottom billion.”

See the full list of 100 >>

Get TED delivered:
Subscribe to the TEDTalks video podcast via RSS >>
Subscribe to the iTunes video podcast
Subscribe to the iTunes audio podcast
Get updates via Twitter >>
Join our Facebook fan page >>

Subscribe to the TED Blog >>

I think I was supposed to talk about my new book, which is called Blink, and it’s about snap judgments and first impressions. And it comes out in January, and I hope you all buy it in triplicate. (laughter) But I was thinking about this, and I realized that although my new book makes me happy, and I think would make my mother happy, it’s not really about happiness- so I decided instead I would talk about someone who I think has done as much to make Americans happy as perhaps anyone over the last 20 years. A man who is a great personal hero of mine, someone by the name of Howard Moskowitz, who is most famous for re-inventing spaghetti sauce.

Howard is- (holds hand slightly below shoulder level)- Howard’s about this high, and he’s round, and he’s in his sixties, and he has big huge glasses and thinning grey hair, and he has a kind of wonderful exuberance and vitality, and he keeps a- has a parrot, and he loves the opera, and he’s a great aficionado of medieval history. And he, by profession, he’s a psychophysicist. Now, I should tell you that I have no idea what psychophysics is, although at some point in my life, I dated a girl for two years who was getting her doctorate in psychophysics. Which should tell you something about that relationship.

But- (laughter) Howard- As far as I know, psychophysics is about measuring things. And Howard is very interested in measuring things. And he graduated with his doctorate from Harvard, and he set up a little consulting shop in White Plains, New York. And one of his first clients was- this is many years ago, back in the early 70s- one of his first clients was Pepsi. And Pepsi came to Howard and they said, you know, we- there’s this new thing called aspartame, and we would like to make Diet Pepsi. We’d like you to figure out how much aspartame we should put in each can of Diet Pepsi, in order to have the perfect drink. Right?

Now that sounds like an incredibly straightforward question to answer, and that’s what Howard thought. ‘Cause Pepsi told him, look, we’re working with a band between 8 and 12%. Anything below 8% sweetness is not sweet enough, anything above 12% sweetness is too sweet. We wanna know, what’s the sweet spot between 8 and 12. Now, if I gave you this problem to do, you would all say, it’s very simple. What we do is you make up a big experimental batch of Pepsi, at every degree of sweetness- 8%, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, all the way up to 12- and we try this out with thousands of people, and we plot the results on a curve, and we take the most popular concentration. Right? Really simple.

Howard does the experiment, and he gets the data back, and he plots it on a curve, and all the sudden he realizes- it’s not a nice bell curve. In fact, the data doesn’t make any sense. It’s a mess. It’s all over the place. Now, most people in that business, in the world of testing food and such, are not dismayed when the data comes back a mess. They think, well, you know, figuring out what people think about cola’s not that easy, you know, maybe we made an error somewhere along the way, you know, let’s just make an educated guess, and they simply point and they go for 10%, right in the middle. Howard is not so easily placated. Howard is a man of a certain degree of intellectual standards. And this was not good enough for him, and this question bedeviled him for years. And he would think it through and say, what was wrong? Why could we not make sense of this experiment with Diet Pepsi?

And one day, he was sitting in a diner in White Plains, about to go- trying to dream up some work for Nescafe. And suddenly, like a bolt of lightning, the answer came to him. And that is that when they analyzed the Diet Pepsi data, they were asking the wrong question. They were looking for the perfect Pepsi, and they should have been looking for the perfect Pepsis. Trust me. This was an enormous revelation. This was one of the most brilliant breakthroughs in all of food science. And Howard immediately went on the road, and he would go to conferences around the country, and he would stand up and he would say- You had been looking for the perfect Pepsi- you’re wrong. You should be looking for the perfect Pepsis. And people would look at him with a blank look, and they would say, what are you talking about? This is craziness. And they would say, you know, move! Next! Tried to get business, nobody would hire him- he was obsessed, though, and he talked about it and talked about it and talked about it. Howard loves the Yiddish expression “to a worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish.” This was his horseradish. (laughter) He was obsessed with it!

And finally, he had a breakthrough. Vlasic Pickles came to him, and they said, Mr. Moskowitz- Doctor Moskowitz- we wanna make the perfect pickle. And he said, there is no perfect pickle, there are only perfect pickles. And he came back to them and he said, you don’t just need to improve your regular, you need to create zesty. And that’s where we got zesty pickles. Then the next person came to him, and that was Campbell’s Soup. And this was even more important- in fact, Campbell’s Soup is where Howard made his reputation. Campbell’s made Prego, and Prego, in the early 80s, was struggling next to Ragu, which was the dominant spaghetti sauce of the 70s and 80s.

Now in the industry, I don’t know whether you care about this, or how much time I have to go into this, but it was, technically speaking- this is an aside- Prego is a better tomato sauce than Ragu. The quality of the tomato paste is much better, the spice mix is far superior, it adheres to the pasta in a much more pleasing way, in fact, they would do the famous bowl test back in the 70s with Ragu and Prego- you’d have a plate of spaghetti, and you would pour it on, right? And the Ragu would all go to the bottom, and the Prego would sit on top. That’s called adherence. And, anyway, despite the fact that they were far superior in adherence, and the quality of their tomato paste, Prego was struggling.

So they came to Howard, and they said, fix us. And Howard looked at their product line, and he said, what you have is a dead tomato society. So he said, this is what I want to do. And he got together with the Campbell’s soup kitchen, and he made 45 varieties of spaghetti sauce. And he varied them according to every conceivable way that you can vary tomato sauce. By sweetness, by level of garlic, by tartness, by sourness, by tomatoey-ness, by visible solids- my favorite term in the spaghetti sauce business (laughter)- every conceivable way you can vary spaghetti sauce, he varied spaghetti sauce. And then he took this whole raft of 45 spaghetti sauces, and he went on the road. He went to New York, he went to Chicago, he went to Jacksonville, he went to Los Angeles. And he brought in people by the truckload. Into big halls. And he sat them down for two hours, and he gave them, over the course of that two hours, 10 bowls. 10 small bowls of pasta, with a different spaghetti sauce on each one. And after they ate each bowl, they had to rate, from 0 to 100, how good they thought the spaghetti sauce was.

At the end of that process, after doing it for months and months, he had a mountain of data about how the American people feel about spaghetti sauce. And then he analyzed the data. Now, did he look for the most popular brand variety of spaghetti sauce? No! Howard doesn’t believe that there is such a thing. Instead, he looked at the data, and he said, let’s see if we can group these different- all these different data points- into clusters. Let’s see if they congregate around certain ideas. And sure enough, if you sit down, and you analyze all this data on spaghetti sauce, you realize that all Americans fall into one of three groups. There are people who like their spaghetti sauce plain, there are people who like their spaghetti sauce spicy, and there are people who like it extra chunky.

And of those three facts, the third one was the most significant. Because at the time, in the early 1980s, if you went to a supermarket, you would not find extra chunky spaghetti sauce. And Prego turned to Howard, and they said “You telling me that one third of Americans crave extra chunky spaghetti sauce and yet no one is servicing their needs?” And he said yes! (laughter) And Prego then went back, and completely reformulated their spaghetti sauce, and came out with a line of extra chunky that immediately and completely took over the spaghetti sauce business in this country. And over the next 10 years, they made 600 million dollars off their line of extra chunky sauces.

And everyone else in the industry looked at what Howard had done, and they said, oh my god! We’ve been thinking all wrong! And that’s when you started getting 7 different kinds of vinegar, and 14 different kinds of mustard, and 71 different kinds of olive oil, and- and then eventually even Ragu hired Howard, and Howard did the exact same thing for Ragu that he did for Prego, and today, if you go to the supermarket, a really good one, and you look at how many Ragus there are- Do you know how many they are? 36! In six varieties. Cheese, Light, Robusto, Rich & Hearty, Old World Traditional (pause)- Extra Chunky Garden. (laughter) That’s Howard’s doing. That is Howard’s gift to the American people.

Now why is that important? It is, in fact, enormously important. I’ll explain to you why.

(picture of a bowl of spaghetti with sauce)

Because what Howard did, is he fundamentally changed the way the food industry thinks about making you happy. Assumption number one in the food industry used to be that the way to find out what people wanna eat- what will make people happy- is to ask them. And for years and years and years and years, Ragu and Prego would have focus groups, and they would sit all you people down, and they would say “what do you want in a spaghetti sauce? Tell us what you want in a spaghetti sauce.” And for all those years- 20, 30 years- through all those focus group sessions, no one ever said they wanted extra chunky. Even though at least a third of them, deep in their hearts, actually did. (laughter)

People don’t know what they want! Right? As Howard loves to say, “the mind knows not what the tongue wants.” It’s a mystery! And a critically important step in understanding our own desires and tastes is to realize that we can not always explain what we want deep down. If I asked all of you, for example, in this room, what you want in a coffee- You know what you’d say? Every one of you would say “I want a dark, rich, hearty roast.” It’s what people always say when you ask them what they want in a coffee. What do you like? Dark, rich, hearty roast! What percentage of you actually like a dark rich hearty roast? According to Howard, somewhere between 25 and 27% of you. Most of you like milky, weak coffee. Which you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want- that I want a milky, weak coffee. (laughter)

So that’s number one thing that Howard did. Number two thing that Howard did is he made us realize- it’s another very critical point- he made us realize in the importance of what he likes to call horizontal segmentation. Why is this critical? It’s critical because this is the way the food industry thought before Howard. Right? What were they obsessed with in the early 80s? They were obsessed with mustard. In particular, they were obsessed with the story of Grey Poupon. Right? Used to be, there were two mustards. French’s and Gulden’s. What were they? Yellow mustard. What’s in yellow mustard? Yellow mustard seeds, turmeric, and paprika. That was mustard. Grey Poupon came along, with a Dijon. Right? Much more volatile brown mustard seed, some white wine, a nose hit, much more delicate aromatics, and what do they do? They put it in a little tiny glass jar, with a wonderful enameled label on it, made it look French, even though it’s made in Oxnard, California, and instead of charging $1.50 for the 8 ounce bottle, the way the French’s and Gulden’s did, they decided to charge 4 dollars. And then they had those ads, right? With the guy in the Rolls Royce, and he’s eating the Grey Poupon, the other Rolls Royce pulls up, and he says, do you have any Grey Poupon? And the whole thing, after they did that, Grey Poupon takes off! Takes over the mustard business!

And everyone’s take home lesson from that was that the way to get to make people happy is to give them something that is more expensive, something to aspire to. Right? It’s to make them turn their back on what they think they like now, and reach out for something higher up the mustard hierarchy. A better mustard! A more expensive mustard! A mustard of more sophistication, and culture, and meaning. And Howard looked to that and said, that’s wrong! Mustard does not exist on a hierarchy. Mustard exists, just like tomato sauce, on a horizontal plane. There is no good mustard, or bad mustard. There is no perfect mustard, or imperfect mustard. There are only different kinds of mustards that suit different kinds of people. He fundamentally democratized the way we think about taste. And for that, as well, we owe Howard Moskowitz a huge vote of thanks.

Third thing that Howard did, and perhaps the most important, is Howard confronted the notion of the Platonic dish. (laughter) What do I mean by that? For the longest time in the food industry, there was a sense that there was one way- a perfect way- to make a dish. You go to Chez Panisse, they give you the red tail sashimi with roasted pumpkin seeds in a something something reduction- they don’t give you five options on the reduction. Right? They don’t say, do you want the extra chunky reduction, or do you want the… No! You just get the reduction. Why? Because the chef at Chez Panisse has a Platonic notion about red tail sashimi. This is the way it ought to be. And she serves it that way time and time again, and if you quarrel with her, she will say- you know what? You’re wrong! This is the best way it ought to be in this restaurant.

Now that same idea fueled the commercial food industry as well. They had a notion- a Platonic notion- of what tomato sauce was. And where did that come from? It came from Italy. Italian tomato sauce is what? It’s blended, it’s thin. The culture of tomato sauce was thin. When we talked about authentic tomato sauce in the 1970s, we talked about Italian tomato sauce. We talked about the earliest Ragus. Which had no visible solids, right? Which were thin, and you just put a little bit over it and it sunk down to the bottom of the pasta. That’s what it was. And why were we attached to that? Because we thought that what it took to make people happy was to provide them with the most culturally authentic tomato sauce-A; and B, we thought that if we gave them the culturally authentic tomato sauce, then they would embrace it. And that’s what would please the maximum number of people.

And Howard- and the reason we thought that, other words- people in the cooking world were looking for cooking universals. They were looking for one way to treat all of us. And it’s good reason for them to be obsessed with the idea of universals, because all of science- through the 19th century and much of the 20th- was obsessed with universals. Psychologists, medical scientists, economists- were all interested in finding out the rules that govern the way all of us behave. But that changed, right? What is the great revolution in science of the last 10, 15 years? It is the movement from the search for universals to the understanding of variability. Now in medical science, we don’t wanna know how necessarily- just how cancer works, we wanna know how your cancer is different from my cancer. Genetics has opened the door to the study of human variability.

What Howard Moskowitz was doing was saying this same revolution needs to happen in the world of tomato sauce. And for that, we owe him a great vote of thanks. I’ll give you one last illustration of variability, and that is- oh, I’m sorry. Howard not only believed that, but he took it a second step, which was to say that when we pursue universal principles in food, we aren’t just making an error, we are actually doing ourselves a massive disservice. And the example he used was coffee. And coffee is something he did a lot of work with, with Nescafe. If I were to ask all of you to try and come up with a brand of coffee- a type of coffee- a brew- that made all of you happy, and then I asked you to rate that coffee, the average score in this room for coffee would be about 60 on a scale of 0 to 100. If, however, you allowed me to break you into coffee clusters, maybe 3 or 4 coffee clusters, and I could make coffee just- one of those for each of those individual clusters- your scores would go from 60, to 75 or 78. The difference between coffee at 60 and coffee at 78 is a difference between coffee that makes you wince, and coffee that makes you deliriously happy.

That is the final, and I think most beautiful lesson, of Howard Moskowitz. That in embracing the diversity of human beings, we will find a surer way to true happiness. Thank you.

Not long after Freakonomics came out, Steven Levitt and I had a public debate at a salon in downtown Manhattan. The subject was crime. In my book The Tipping Point, I had argued that the cluster of innovative policing strategies known as “broken windows” played a big role in the dramatic drop in New York City’s crime rate. Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner argued, to the contrary, that “broken windows” was an illusion and that other factors, like the demographic changes brought about by the legalization of abortion, played a much bigger role. It was a straightforward back-and-forth. Levitt got up and made his case. I got up and made mine. But halfway through, I glanced over at Levitt and had a realization that I’m not sure I’ve ever had before with an intellectual opponent—that if I made my case persuasively and cogently enough, he would change his mind. He was, in other words, listening. More >>

The above-mentioned event was, course, a TED salon. Held at the TED loft in Tribeca, it featured the friendly, timely debate between Gladwell and Levitt, the week Freakonomics was published. Very pleased to see the salon had as much impact on them as it did on us!

Who had the last word? Well that’s an open question … Nearly a year later, they’ve picked up the thread, trading persuasive posts on their respective blogs. Gladwell re-opened the discussion, Levitt and Dubner responded. And you can watch it progress from there …

You might think that a five-year obsession to create a new cookie is a little strange… except this is no ordinary cookie. It had to be both mass-market… and healthy: A hard problem; and one solved not so much by the wisdom of crowds, but a little individual inspiration.

If you have an interesting tale that sparked from a recent TED, please let me know…