We love choices, don’t we? Not always. Think about channel hopping; all of us have been guilty of it. What could be an accurate description of the goal of this activity? One possible answer is that it is enjoyable by itself. However, after engaging in it, frequently, we end up feeling that we have wasted our time. Then, it seems that we really want to find something entertaining to watch; that is our purpose.
I am sure that when you cannot find something to watch it is not because there is not a good option available. I mean, there are (likely) 100+ channels. So, why were you unable to find something good to watch? One possible explanation is the infamous FOMO, or fear of missing out: maybe, by watching something good, you are missing out on something better. Is it rational to continue your search? Probably not. The reason is that you do not know. You do not know a better show is being broadcasted on the other channel. So, should you abstain from searching at all, and watch whatever it is airing when you turn on the TV? It seems the answer here is no. There are 100+ channels!
Extreme approaches are bad ideas. Rationality is about commitments. You have to commit to a channel hopping time that makes sense, based on rules of thumb. If you have 2 hours to watch TV, something like a 15-minute channel-hopping window sounds rational (at least, from my point of view).
The more general point is that too many choices can hurt. Don’t let the inconsequential character of the example I’ve chosen distract you from this fact.