Talk:Hobson's choice
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hobson's choice article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | England Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Redirect
This page links to Thomas Hobson, which redirects here. Either it should be a no-redirect link, or someone should write an article on the man, or the link should be removed. --Taejo 9 July 2005 13:34 (UTC)
- Good thinking. I just created the article. -asx- 04:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Model T
In reality, the Model T was available in a modest palette of colors, but the rapid production required quick-drying paint, which at the time was available in only one color—black
?? Was the car available in a modest palette of colours, or just black? Or was it later available in other colours? Or could you pay extra to get the black painted-over? --Sophistifunk 03:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The accuracy of the quoted piece is disputed by Wikipedia article on the Model T. 71.213.106.219 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Example
There is a homeless advocacy group in Seattle WA called Real Change whose website offers an interesting interactive game called Hobson's Choice. I suggest it illustrates the concept nicely and serves as an example. Find it at http://www.realchangenews.org/hobsons/index.html . I am an independent author and have no connection with either Wikipedia or Real Change. (Joe Zlomek, Pottstown PA, 11 May 2007).
A simple example would be nice here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SousaFan88 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah
Pretty sure those writers are just wrong. It's Hobson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BonniePrinceCharlie (talk • contribs) 22:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
USAA?
USAA is famous for this? How about a reference for that? Tebucky 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Tebucky
Modern usage
I removed "This use is disputed." Because it served no purpose, and failed to indicate who disputed it or why. Mostly because it served no purpose.
I removed the second paragraph from this section as well. The second example contradicted the earlier distinction between a Hobson's choice and a dilema. After remove the second choice, the paragraph seemed untenable.
If this is unacceptable, please provide improvements rather than simply reverting. The second paragraph really did contradict the first, and "This is disputed." really is not necessary. If there is a dispute and it is relevant, that the disputers need to be identified, the dispute should be given context and related as any good encyclopedia would.— Preceding unsigned comment added by St.York (talk • contribs)
More on modern usage
When I read this section I felt it did not adequately describe how this phrase is commonly used, but merely points out the frequent confusion with dilemma.
- Classic Hobson: here is a choice of one option or nothing - take it or leave it
- Dilemma: here is a choice between two or more options that the chooser considers equally undesirable or (rarely) desirable
- Modern usage: here is a choice between two or more options where only one option can actually be chosen.
In this latter usage the chooser may be able to choose nothing, making this a form of Hobson's Choice, or may have to choose the only option available, in which case it's no choice at all. I suggest that Henry Ford's "Any color as long as it's black" could be put in this latter category, as one can't choose to have no colour at all, meaning one must choose black, it being given that one is getting a Model T. However I accept one could equally argue that getting a Model T is not a given, but contingent on colour choice, making his statement an original Hobson's Choice - one could choose not to have a Model T at all.
Example of modern usage, type A: A person has a medical condition for which two treatment options are indicated, but only one is available in the country in which they live or under their insurance scheme. They can choose to take that treatment option, or no treatment. A choice presented as several options turns into a take-it-or-leave-it on examination.
Example of modern usage, type B: A person is asked to pick a red card, but is offered only one red card among many black cards. They have to pick the red card. This is not truly a Hobson's Choice, but is often referred to as such. I don't know what it's called in philosophy, although in magic/entertainment it can be referred to as a force.
Thoughts anyone?
In any case the opening phrase of this section, "Hobson's choice is often misused not to mean a false illusion of choice" should be reworded to "Hobson's choice is often misused not to mean a choice between one option or nothing". Hobson's choice is most definitely a choice and not an illusion of one, you can choose nothing. Cathi M (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Take it or leave it
Hobson's choice is encapsulated in Hobson's own words when a prospective client objected to Hobson's system of allocating horses. "Take it or leave it." Modern usage has many alternative, related meanings of the phrase, which it is appropriate to list in this article, as a contrast to the original.
The list in the section on media examples are all, without exception, departures from the "take it or leave it" philosophy of the original. Before changing my "all" back to "most", please consider this, and either
- indicate which one (or more) you consider to be take it or leave it choices, or
- explain what is wrong with keeping the original usage as the definitive meaning.
Thank you. --King Hildebrand 14:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Dragon Quest example illustrates both a traditional Hobson's choice ("take option A or leave it"--that is, or quit playing) and a modern pseudo-Hobson's-choice variant that isn't otherwise described in the article (the false appearance of two choices when there's only one). --75.36.140.83 12:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- The original Hobson's choice does not appear to have two options but there only be one. There is infact two options a) Take the horse or b) Leave the horse. So the "take it or leave it" idea seems to be more accurate. Cls14 17:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
First written record
According to, among others, Gary Martin at 'The Phrase Finder', article 'Hobson's Choice' at [1]:
- Samuel Fisher's, The rustick's alarm to the Rabbies 1660, includes this:
- "If in this Case there be no other (as the Proverb is) then Hobson's choice ... which is, chuse whether you will have this or none."
If this quotation is correct, the article needs amending to reflect it. yoyo (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it would seem the "first written record" in this article is incorrect. The OED has the 1660 usage by Fisher, and for that matter the Ward usage is given as a1706...(1716). Here is the relevant section:
- 1660 S. FISHER Rusticks Alarm Wks. (1679) 128 If in this Case there be no other (as the Proverb is) then Hobson's choice..which is, chuse whether you will have this or none. 1691 WOOD Ath. Oxon. II. 331 The Masters were left to Hobsons choice, to choose Bennet and no body else. a1708 T. WARD Eng. Ref. (1716) 326 (D.) Where to elect there is but one, 'Tis Hobson's choice, Take that or none.
- The OED does specifically mention "See Spectator 1712 No. 509" as being important in the short description of the phrase's source about Hobson. —Centrx→talk • 03:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- New section 'Early appearances in writing' sets the record straight. yoyo (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)