In a world overflowing with information, one might assume that human beings have become better decision-makers. Yet, paradoxically, the abundance of information often complicates rather than simplifies our choices. This dilemma is reminiscent of Thomas Sowell's exploration of knowledge and decision-making, where he emphasizes the impact of 'unconstrained' versus 'constrained' visions. Sowell's ideas provide a framework for understanding why common sense remains astonishingly uncommon, even in an era where information is just a click away.

At the heart of Sowell's philosophy is the concept of trade-offs, a notion deeply embedded in the 'constrained' vision. This perspective acknowledges the limitations of human nature and resources, advocating for decisions grounded in empirical evidence and historical context. In contrast, the 'unconstrained' vision, often driven by idealism and abstract ideals, tends to overlook the practicalities of real-world limitations. This dichotomy is crucial in understanding human decision-making, as it highlights the tension between idealistic pursuits and realistic constraints. The prevalence of the 'unconstrained' vision in contemporary discourse can lead to decisions that are more aspirational than practical, often disregarding the trade-offs that inevitably accompany any choice.

This philosophical reflection urges us to consider the implications of these visions in our own lives. When faced with decisions, are we guided by an idealistic desire to achieve perfection, or do we accept the imperfect, yet tangible, outcomes of our choices? Sowell's insights provoke a deeper examination of our decision-making processes, encouraging a shift towards a more balanced approach that values empirical evidence and acknowledges inevitable trade-offs. By embracing the 'constrained' vision, we not only enhance our own lives but also contribute to a more rational and grounded society, where common sense prevails over idealistic abstraction.