critical writing and analysis

In “Immune to Reality,” Daniel Gilbert contends that, “The costs and benefits of freedom are clear—but alas, [the costs of freedom on the one hand and the benefits of freedom on the other] are not equally clear: We have no trouble anticipating the advantages that freedom may provide, but we seem blind to the joys [freedom] can undermine” (142). To what extent should Gilbert’s study of ways the “psychological immune system” manages our perceptions of reality complicate the alleged value of the power to select in one of the other three readings and vice versa? In other words, in what ways do people overestimate the value of freedom and options; and to what degree do Gilbert’s assertions regarding the split between reality on the one hand and our individual attitudes about reality on the other answer this question?