INTERNACIONAL
Por qué tener muchas opciones puede hacer menos feliz a la gente

Frente a una variedad interminable de opciones, lo que parecía ser un camino a una mayor satisfacción acaba tornándose en un desafío, según demuestra un reciente estudio del Instituto Técnico de California (Caltech). Publicado en la revista Nature Human Behavior, la investigación cuestiona la idea común de que disponer de más alternativas conlleva una mayor libertad y bienestar.
Los hallazgos de Caltech indican que llega un momento en el cual la abundancia de opciones se convierte en un obstáculo, influyendo negativamente tanto en decisiones cotidianas como en aquellas de mayor trascendencia. Este fenómeno, conocido por los expertos como la “paradoja de la elección”, sugiere que la vasta oferta con la que convivimos puede resultar en indecisión e insatisfacción, paralizando a las personas y dificultando el proceso de elección.
Durante años, la noción de que disponer de un sinfín de opciones es la clave para alcanzar la libertad y la satisfacción ha dominado el imaginario social. Sin embargo, en la práctica diaria, este exceso puede convertirse en un verdadero problema.
La sobrecarga de posibilidades puede llevar a la indecisión, paralizando tanto en decisiones fundamentales —como decidir el colegio de un hijo o enfrentar un dilema médico— como en elecciones más mundanas, como elegir un restaurante, planear unas vacaciones o adquirir un automóvil.
La sociedad de consumo actual, caracterizada por su incesante oferta de productos y servicios, ha hecho de esta multiplicidad una de sus marcas distintivas. Mucha oferta puede ser contraproducente, ya que provoca ansiedad y complica el proceso de quedar satisfecho con la decisión final. No obstante, las expectativas derivadas de este modelo no siempre se cumplen.

El estudio publicado en Nature Human Behavior y realizado por investigadores de Caltech se propuso analizar de manera científica el impacto de la sobrecarga de opciones en la toma de decisiones.
Para ello, los autores recurrieron a técnicas de neuroimagen, utilizando resonancias magnéticas, mientras los participantes evaluaban diferentes conjuntos de alternativas compuestos por 6, 12 o 24 elementos.
Durante el experimento, los participantes debían elegir entre los distintos conjuntos, mientras los investigadores observaban la actividad cerebral asociada al proceso de decisión.
Los resultados mostraron que los conjuntos de 12 opciones generaban una mayor actividad cerebral, lo que los expertos interpretaron como un número adecuado de alternativas. En contraste, los grupos con solo 6 elementos se percibían como insuficientes, mientras que los de 24 resultaban excesivos y reducían la actividad cerebral relacionada con la toma de decisiones.
Según los investigadores, la introducción de una opción claramente dominante facilitaba la elección y aumentaba la actividad cerebral. Cuando el número de alternativas se volvía demasiado grande, la actividad en el cerebro se paralizaba, lo que sugiere una dificultad real para procesar y comparar las variables.
Dicho estudio identificó dos regiones cerebrales especialmente implicadas en este fenómeno: el estriatum, encargado de determinar el valor de las cosas, y la corteza cingulada anterior, relacionada con la evaluación y el control de las decisiones. La observación de estas áreas permitió a los científicos concluir que existe un umbral a partir del cual la variedad de opciones deja de ser útil y comienza a ser perjudicial.
Uno de los hallazgos más destacados del estudio de Caltech es la identificación de un rango óptimo de alternativas para facilitar la toma de decisiones. Según los expertos, el número ideal de opciones se sitúa entre 8 y 15. Este intervalo parece ofrecer un equilibrio adecuado: suficiente variedad para elegir sin que la cantidad de alternativas resulte abrumadora.
Los investigadores advierten que este rango no es absoluto y puede variar en función de varios factores. Entre ellos, destacan el nivel de recompensa percibido tras la elección y las características personales de cada individuo, como la facilidad o dificultad para evaluar las opciones disponibles.
Así, una persona acostumbrada a analizar múltiples variables podría tolerar un mayor número de alternativas, mientras que alguien más indeciso o exigente podría sentirse sobrepasado con menos opciones.
Estos resultados tienen implicaciones prácticas en numerosos ámbitos, desde el diseño de menús en restaurantes hasta la oferta de productos en comercios o la presentación de alternativas en servicios digitales.
En ese sentido, encontrar el equilibrio adecuado entre variedad y simplicidad puede ser clave para mejorar la experiencia del usuario y evitar la insatisfacción derivada de la sobrecarga de opciones.

El psicólogo Barry Schwartz, reconocido por su trabajo sobre la paradoja de la elección, aporta una visión complementaria a los hallazgos del estudio de Caltech. Sostiene que la libertad de elección es un principio central en la sociedad contemporánea, pero advierte que un exceso de alternativas no necesariamente incrementa la libertad ni la felicidad.
Para Schwartz, elegir entre demasiadas opciones puede reducir la capacidad de acción de las personas y aumentar la insatisfacción. “No nos hace más felices, sino más insatisfechos”, afirma el experto, quien acuñó el término “paradoja de la elección” para describir este fenómeno.
En su análisis, una gran diversidad de opciones puede parecer, en la superficie, una ventaja para el consumidor, pero en la práctica puede generar una sensación de agobio y dificultar la satisfacción con la decisión tomada.
La sobrecarga de alternativas afecta especialmente a las personas exigentes y poco conformistas, quienes tienden a analizar en exceso las posibilidades y a cuestionar si han tomado la mejor decisión posible. Esta tendencia puede llevar a la insatisfacción crónica, incluso cuando la elección objetiva es positiva.
El estudio de Caltech y las reflexiones de Barry Schwartz coinciden en señalar los riesgos asociados a la sobreabundancia de alternativas. La sobrecarga de opciones puede dificultar la toma de decisiones, generar ansiedad y conducir a la insatisfacción, especialmente en individuos poco conformistas o con altas expectativas.
En palabras de Schwartz, “muchas opciones pueden ser demasiadas”, una advertencia que invita a reconsiderar la relación entre variedad, libertad y bienestar en la vida cotidiana.
La investigación sugiere que, lejos de ser siempre beneficiosa, la multiplicidad de alternativas puede convertirse en un obstáculo para la satisfacción personal y la salud mental.
INTERNACIONAL
Georgia attorney general sues GOP opponent in governor’s race over campaign financing

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, one of the leading Republican contenders for governor, has filed a lawsuit against Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, challenging the legality of his GOP rival’s campaign funding.
Carr asked a federal judge to permanently block Jones’ ability to spend money from his leadership committee, a fundraising tool that allows the state’s governor, lieutenant governor and legislative leaders to raise unlimited funds.
Both men are leading Republican candidates to succeed term-limited GOP Gov. Brian Kemp after next year’s election.
Carr argues that Jones’ leadership committee violates the attorney general’s First Amendment right to free speech and his 14th Amendment right to equal protection by setting up a campaign finance structure that boosts Jones and limits how much Carr can spend on his campaign. A 2021 state law that created leadership committees does not allow Carr or other declared candidates to have access to the fundraising vehicle.
Carr’s regular campaign committee is limited to raising $8,400 from each donor for his primary campaign and $4,200 for a potential primary runoff.
FORMER GEORGIA LT. GOV. GEOFF DUNCAN ABANDONS GOP TO JOIN DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, pictured here, sued Lt. Gov. Burt Jones over the legality of the lieutenant governor’s campaign funding. (Megan Varner/Getty Images)
Carr campaign spokeswoman Julia Mazzone said in a statement that Jones «is using his position to sidestep contribution limits, raise six-figure checks during legislative sessions and funnel unlimited money into a competitive primary through a structure only he can access.»
«Republicans cannot ignore the cloud of unethical, illegal and corrupt behavior that surrounds Burt Jones,» Mazzone said.
«Leadership committees were never intended to be unregulated campaign machines,» the statement added. «The court has ruled on this before, and the Constitution prohibits exactly what’s happening here. We’re taking action to uphold transparency and accountability standards.»
A Jones campaign spokesperson, meanwhile, has accused Carr of being hypocritical since his office previously defended the same law that he is now challenging in court. Carr has argued that the attorney general must defend challenged laws even if he personally disagrees with them.
«Georgia’s lackluster Attorney General defended this law two years ago,» Kendyl Parker, Jones’ spokeswoman said. «Now, he’s running for governor and wants to challenge the same law he once defended. If hypocrisy were an Olympic sport, he’d take gold.»
Carr launched his gubernatorial bid last year, saying he needed more time to raise money because he is not personally wealthy. His campaign has expressed concerns for months that Jones will use his leadership committee and family wealth to support his primary campaign.
REPUBLICAN DOOLEY JUMPS INTO GEORGIA’S SENATE RACE WHILE TOUTING SUPPORT FOR TRUMP AND TAKING AIM AT OSSOFF

Georgia AG Chris Carr asked a federal judge to permanently block Lt. Gov. Burt Jones’ ability to spend money from the lieutenant governor’s leadership committee. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
The Carr campaign has sought to have the state Ethics Commission probe the source of a $10 million loan Jones made to his leadership committee, although the commission declined to launch an investigation, noting that Carr failed to allege a legal violation.
The attorney general’s campaign pointed to U.S. District Judge Mark Cohen’s 2022 ruling that a leadership committee for Kemp could not use money for Kemp’s re-election campaign during that year’s Republican primary. Cohen found that the «unequal campaign finance scheme» violated GOP primary challenger and former U.S. Sen. David Perdue’s First Amendment right to free speech.
Cohen ruled that Kemp could continue raising money for the leadership committee but said the governor could not spend it against Perdue in the primary.
«Despite full knowledge of this history, Mr. Jones and his leadership committee, WBJ Leadership Committee, Inc., are ignoring this Court’s prior rulings and using a leadership committee—that has no contribution or coordinated spending limits—in a primary election against a candidate without one,» Carr’s lawsuit reads.
Carr is seeking additional restrictions on Jones’ leadership committee than in Cohen’s ruling. The attorney general is asking a judge to cut off both fundraising and spending from the lieutenant governor’s leadership committee until the primary race is over.
He is also requesting that a federal magistrate judge be appointed to oversee all spending by the leadership committee and that Jones’ regular campaign committee repay any money already spent by the leadership committee to support Jones’ gubernatorial run.
«The loan and its amount are significant because Mr. Jones is also able to raise unlimited funds into the leadership committee, then repay the loan from funds raised that then can be applied directly to his campaign account, effectively removing the contribution limits from those dollars,» the lawsuit says.

Lt. Gov. Burt Jones’ campaign criticized Georgia AG Chris Carr as a hypocrite since his office defended the same law in 2022 that he is now challenging in court. (Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)
Carr asks that the court block Jones from giving any cash to dark money groups or making any loans to his regular campaign committee during the primary. He also wants the magistrate judge to probe where Jones’ $10 million loan came from, citing a 2022 financial disclosure showing that Jones did not have enough liquid assets for a loan of that quantity.
The attorney general’s campaign continues to express concern that Jones could raise unlimited money to repay his loan and then give the repaid money to his candidate committee for the primary, arguing that this would wreck campaign contribution restrictions.
«Mr. Jones is raising and spending unlimited amounts of money in the primary—and Mr. Carr is limited in what he can raise by Georgia’s existing campaign contribution limits,» the lawsuit reads. «This Court should level this uneven playing field by preventing Mr. Jones from using his leadership committee during the primary election.»
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Carr’s campaign has also called on the Ethics Commission for an advisory legal opinion on whether Jones’ fundraising activity is legal.
The Republican primary will be held in May, and the general election next year in the purple state is expected to be one of the most expensive governor’s races in the country.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
georgia,us,politics,republicans elections,elections,elections state and local
INTERNACIONAL
Trump-Putin summit could happen as soon as next week

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Trump could be happening as soon as next week.
Fox News can report that officials are tentatively planning for a Trump-Putin summit at the end of next week, according to a source familiar with the planning. The location is still up in the air but Hungary, Switzerland, Rome and the United Arab Emirates are in the mix, Fox News is told.
ZELENSKYY TELLS PUTIN TO ‘BE BRAVE’ AND FINALLY AGREE TO TRILATERAL MEETING WITH TRUMP
President Donald Trump is expected to meet in person with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, possibly next week. (Getty Images)
TRUMP-PUTIN MEETING AGREED UPON ‘IN PRINCIPLE,’ KREMLIN AIDE INDICATES
The summit could still ultimately fall apart as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy informed officials of the terms of the Ukrainian Constitution which mandate a national referendum for any territorial concessions.

U.S. President Donald Trump (C) and Vice President JD Vance meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office at the White House on February 28, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
A meeting between Putin and Trump would be their first since Trump returned to office this year. It would be a significant milestone in the 3-year-old war, though there’s no promise such a meeting would lead to the end of the fighting since Russia and Ukraine remain far apart on their demands.
Trump, appearing before reporters later at the White House, didn’t answer questions about a potential location for a meeting but when asked about a summit with Putin and Zelenskyy, said «there’s a very good prospect that they will» meet.

In this pool photograph distributed by the Russian state agency Sputnik, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin chairs a Security Council meeting via videoconference at the Kremlin in Moscow on March 28, 2025. (SERGEI ILYIN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The president declined to predict how close he was to reaching a deal to end the fighting, saying, «I’ve been disappointed before with this one.»
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
donald trump,vladimir putin,russia,ukraine,world
INTERNACIONAL
Para Putin, la cumbre con Trump es clave para asegurar los objetivos de Ucrania

Giro
Riesgos
- CHIMENTOS3 días ago
Malas noticias para Wanda Nara: por qué la bajaron misteriosamente de MasterChef: «No va a salir este año»
- POLITICA3 días ago
Axel Kicillof reclamó ante la Corte Suprema $12 billones que le adeuda Nación
- SOCIEDAD3 días ago
“¡Vergüenza nacional! La Policía Federal recibirá aumentos ridículos de solo $10.000 y vive un colapso salarial mientras el costo de vida se dispara”