How would I make this choice if the choices were presented differently?

Rory Sutherland at Edge, lots of interesting bits:
 
"If you can change people's focus, attention, and their status currencies so they derive more pleasure from what already exists, rather than from what has to be created to sate their demands, you can essentially increase wealth without increasing consumption. That seems to me a rather important finding. … a megastar can turn up at the Oscars in a Prius and no one would think there was anything remotely weird about it. If you generally define wealth not in purely financial terms but in the number of choices people can freely and enjoyably make, well, by essentially enabling people to have a modest car without any stigma being attached to it, that's a pretty useful thing you've just done in terms of wealth creation. …

"It seems obvious that people instinctively increase the variance of things as they buy more of them. When people do small weekly shops, they go to a greater variety of shops than they do when they do one enormous £150 shop every ten days. … Now, what seems interesting to me is that no one has applied this thinking to recruitment. If you want greater diversity of recruitment, hire people ten at a time. When you hire people for one job, one at a time, you're very risk-averse, and you go for someone close to the expected norm. If you're hiring ten graduate recruits, you're looking for breadth. This happens without any quotas, without any conscious affirmative action. … This is borne out by the fact that the partners in accounting firms show much less diversity than the graduate recruits do. You appoint partners one at a time, and you hire graduates en masse."