Want versus Need

[RESiNATE]

Want versus Need

All of us have certain motives that drive us throughout our lives. Often those motives change or evolve as our perception and understanding of the world and our self-awareness develops and grows. When we are children, the desire of 'want' could be excused by way of our naivety. However, as we grow into adulthood, one would hope that our previously blinkered vision would have widened into a more balanced and appreciative regard.

Of course, children are individually susceptible to the nurturing of their parents viewpoints and, as such, can be cognitively predisposed toward either end of the sliding scale of reason and value. The core differences between desire and requirement are dictated by the environment in which the child matures; a less wealthy family would have a propensity to regard 'need' above 'want', for instance. Moreover, that inherited 'dictatorship' can be so embedded as to render the child oblivious to the opposing side of the coin in later life.

Although we would all like to think that our pendulum of decision rests in the middle of the arc, I believe that it does not. Bearing in mind that our childhood conditioning plays it part throughout our lives, the choices we make are always made within the boundaries of the situation at hand. However, there are often 'spikes' or anomalies in our thought processes that rebel against our core judgement. These random acts of abandon often bring with them feelings of regret or anger. Sometimes, those emotions of remorse or vengeance can consume us; Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), for example, could be the result of not being able to meet the 'need', whereas depression could be due to not realising the 'want' in life.

In considering the above paragraph, you now need to consider what each word means to you as an individual and which of them generally takes precedence within your thought processing when making a decision.

For this exercise, you are you.

EXERCISE:

The Situation

Your weekly wage is at a level of which allows you the minimum to survive till the next pay day.
You have no savings or collateral.
You are unable to receive any outside assistance in surviving, but you have no dependants.
You have enough food (including the means to cook/prepare it) to last two days, but water is freely available.

The Decision

You have the opportunity to buy the latest fad* but it will cost you your week's wages.
Market trend tells you that the latest fad* will be affordable by you in a year's time.

(* this can be whatever is pertinent to you)

Do you buy it (demonstrating want) or do you leave it until you can afford it in a years time (demonstrating need)?[/b]
Make your choice and discuss your reasoning.


Res…

[Clinton Huxley]

I don't go for fads. As long as I have books and food (and booze), I am happy. Hypothetically though, I'd save up for the "fad". I can't go without food for more than an hour...

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Need. I hate going hungry. Though, up until recently I would have considered tobacco and pot a 'need' too.
My 'wants' can wait. This is how I play irl - computer parts etc. are all about 2-4 years behind current technology. It makes no real difference.

[Animavore]

This guy wants a slap.










This guy needs a slap.











D'ye see the difference?

[Bella Fortuna]

I don't go for fads. As long as I have books and food (and booze), I am happy. Hypothetically though, I'd save up for the "fad". I can't go without booze for more than an hour...

[Animavore]

Where's the 'Steal it' option anyway?
(representing desire)

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Obviously it's a very fuzzy distinction. By "need", are you referring to the basic survival requirements of a Human Being? Because if so, then a person doesn't need that much. If you mean the optimal material and social conditions for optimum personal developments, then this is different for each person. That's why communism doesn't work, because it treats everyone the same in terms of what their needs are, and proscribes how they should live. Each one should find their own path to happiness. To be honest, I deplore faddishness, and think that those who base their happiness on getting the newest designer handbag are pitiful and pathetic, and if they were ever to be on a plane that crashed in the wilderness and they survived, they'd likely die soon after. While materialism is derived from basic human intinct, it can get out of hand, just like any other, such as the instinct for violence.

I'll tell you something that I learned a while ago. It is only by being prepared to do without something we like that we truly can enjoy it. Because then it becomes an item of joy, not a compulsion to be filled.

As Yoda said,
"Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose."

[RESiNATE]

Where's the 'Steal it' option anyway?
(representing desire)

'Want', 'desire', call it what you will.

Stealing is usually driven by need, isn't it?

Hmmm, the complexities of the English language.

By "need", are you referring to the basic survival requirements of a Human Being?

In the context of the situation, yes.

...then a person doesn't need that much.

The sacrifice of choosing 'buy it' is clear; after 2 days, you will find yourself without food, heating, or electric. If you chose 'buy it', then one could reasonably assume that you are driven by 'want' over 'need'.

If you mean the optimal material and social conditions for optimum personal developments, then this is different for each person.

As was discussed in the preamble; familial and social conditioning will influence the decision.

I, for example, have been raised to appreciate the value* of other peoples' and my possessions. My parents taught me to save before I buy. I'll admit that I haven't rigorously adhered to that mandate, but I have certainly considered a product's worth to me before I buy it. I find that I have to justify the expense (these days, in everything), especially if that purchase is something like a plaything - a Playstation 2, for instance. I deliberated upon whether I could justify buying it; I considered the money that I would save by not having to pay arcade prices for gaming, the time that would be converted from boredom into pleasure, and whether or not any other financial matters (more important) had been settled before I declared the money 'disposable'. In fact, I could defend my purchase of the PS2 even now, saying that it has helped me through some bad times of depression by allowing me those brief moments of escapism and derailling my dark thoughts of self-harm onto the tracks of some race circuit that I needed to perfect lol. It's true; I wouldn't sell my PS2 today, because of the saviour it has been for the past 6 years - that is where my consideration in 'value' lies mostly...sentimental reverence, perhaps.

(* I regard 'value' as being condusive; i.e. not just in monetary terms, but in life enhancing terms also.)


The point of this excercise is to answer my notion that this world, most definitly the western civilisation, has succumbed to the lure of 'want' over 'need'. We live in a culture of 'now', of 'pay tomorrow', and 24 hour service. The question (the best scenario I could come up with, I'm afraid lol) tries to polarise the decision; if 'buy it', then the sacrifice to survival was the price, but if 'leave it' then a demonstration of a broader mind and sense of priority (value) might be the indicator.

Obviously, given the clientelle of this particular website...broad thinkers, being the primary 'sell out'..., I wasn't expecting many (if any) 'votes' for 'buy it'. But, many a muckle makes a mickle.

So, to my claim of majoritive 'wanters' in our species...and, no, that wasn't a typo.
It is, without reasonable doubt, that our current economic situation is the blame of people not fully understanding the balance between 'want' and 'need'. We have all acquired something based on pure 'want' during our lives; I certainly have. And I would imagine, given our point of congregation via this website, we have all experienced true 'need'.

The "basic survival requirements of a Human Being", that Manofnofaith speaks of, in truth, boils down to just four things.

Without shelter, whether it be from the cold or the heat, the survival probabilities are reduced.
Without food, a human would obviously suffer serious depletion of hope of living.
Without water, you're doomed!

Those are the obvious three, but I would add a fourth under the heading: companionship.

I believe that the majority, and maybe I'm being far too narrow in my world view, have been coersed into believing that owning 'the latest fad' takes precedence over the obvious first three considerations. "...Keeping up with the Joneses", as goes the infamous jibe, has rendered the population as slaves to their obsession.

I would be surprised (but, also delighted) if anyone could refute my claim.

Some questions:

What will be the catalyst for a 'reversal' of that mindset, will it indeed be this current economic crisis?
How many generations would it take to 'breed out' that mindset?
I really want a PS3, does anyone know I can get one for free?

Legally?

Res...

[Animavore]

Stealing is usually driven by need, isn't it?

I can't imagine anyone stealing a Caravaggio out of need.

[AshtonBlack]

I have been in a similar situation to this.
I'm a saver then buy rather than get things on the drip. (HP/Finance etc.)
It's a lesson I learned from my Father. (Who charged interest on money I borrowed or had in "advance". Not a lot, but it taught me the value of saving.He also gave interest when I didn't take all my pocket money.)

Looking at the Maslow Pyramid:


You can see a standard model.

But, some levels can be inverted. For example: The starving artist is giving up "needs" (level 1) as far as he can to pursue a talent (level 7).

Of course, advertisers, do like to link "wants" to "needs". An example is selling something simple like bottled water but linking it to a higher level on the standard model and claiming it as a "life style" choice smack in the middle of level 3. (recognition).

In conclusion then, people can be fooled into thinking they "need" something, whereas an objective observer can see that, no it's a "want."

[RESiNATE]

I've never seen that [Maslow Pyramid] diagram before, but it does kind of give a representable image to the thrust of my argument - although, I would have thought that the first two 'levels' would be one.

Furthermore, AshtonBlack, you have brought the 'lifestyle advertisment' into the mix.

The point I am trying to make is that the majority of our western culture have been coersed, by advertisers and media alike, that a certain 'lifestyle' is paramount to societal integration.
For example, a worker in the City might feel that she needs a BlackBerry, i-Phone, and Fiat 500. She might feel that to not have those things could jeopardise her standing within the social model. And as a result, the 'want' becomes subversively a 'need' - a need to integrate with those in her profession in order to maintain the possibilities that that situation could offer.

It is not until we face adversity that we can fully and truly appreciate those things we take for granted.

I suffered a mental breakdown which cost me my job. For the last five years, I have learnt the value of need over want.
Whereas I would go shopping and pick up fancy chocolates and exotic fruits before, I now buy stuff that can be mixed into various meals - like pasta, mince beef, etc. I now have to survive on less than £30 worth of food for 2 weeks.

Whereas I'd go to the pub and spend maybe a tenner a night before, I can't even consider having a night out. My entertainment comes from visiting friends or using my PS2. The tenner that I didn't spend at the pub, is now available to continue my survival.

I have learnt a great many lessons, and I am beginning to see how our sense of want has been abused and bastardised into a sense of need.

I often fantasise about returning to the wild, like Grizzly Adams; in that situation, there would be no place for 'want', there would only be 'need'. The Maslow Pyramid would only extend to the second level, as the other levels are not applicable.

I believe, as per the Maslow Pyramid, that the primary objective of the majority is to satify the Belonging part of the scale, even at the cost of the Physiological concern. The sad thing is that the experience of adversity might be the only thing that would dissuade the persuance of want over need.

In todays society, I doubt that many even consider pursuing the Self Actualisation level - especially if it endangers the Belonging attribute. It could be argued that the pursuant artist, as Ashton illustrated, is doing so at the cost of physiological because he wants to Belong to the list of greats...Pollock, etc.

Having read Derron Brown's 'Tricks of the Mind', my eyes have been opening to the subliminal messaging and subversive imagery that is used in advertising. I now find it very difficult to stand watching commercials on TV; picking out obvious language, smirking at hidden messages, and shouting at the screen in defiance that DFS are patently skirting the rules of commerce.

Even the News has me snorting in disgust!
H1N1 my arse! Maybe I'm being cynical, but I imagine that the amount of money spent producing Tamiflu tablets back in the Bird Flu pandemic days was a panic reaction to a few deaths. They gotta get rid of them before the expiry date. Pigs are easy targets, and America hates Mexico, so two birds with one stone - damage Mexico's tourist economy, invent Swine Flu, which happens to be the same virus as Bird Flu, and all of a sudden the backlog of Tamiflu has a new outlet.

I dunno, maybe that last joint was a bit stronger than I thought, as I seem to have wavered from the point....but it is relevant...well, it was...

People have been too dependant upon media and advertising to tell them how they must live their lives. Even the government are getting in on the act. Propoganda is as alive today as it was during WWII - but this time its cleverer. Remember how those loan shark adverts looked; drab, grey colours before you signed up to a 900% loan, bright, happy colours after you'd committed your soul to the sharks.

Even soap operas and drama shows seem to have an agenda.
I laugh at CSI; these programmes are designed to scare the criminal fraternity into believing that their crime would be solved. Notice how each episode includes some latest crime-busting technology, and how the cast member explains in detail how it 'works'...finger prints from a shattered 9mm round? Really?

Soap operas will subliminably control the viewer's thought processes by introducing topical issues...teenage pregnacies, or gay relationships, or the favourite - drug abuse. They have the power to portray each instance in such a way as to sway an opinion one way or another. Drug issues, for example, continue to illustrate the 'bad side' or rare occurances that happen; one ecstasy kills someone, kinda thing.

It makes me angry that people can't be bothered to do their own investigations, or to listen closer to what is being said on the News; Swine flu, in point, would be reporting 100 deaths in UK...but almost mutter that those that died had underlying health issues. Influenza, whether it be Bird, Pig, or Worm flu, is still a nasty virus, and if you aint reasonably healthy, you is gonna suffer. But the only thing that the majority hear is.."100 deaths from Swine Flu..." and then start panicking and stampeding.
Twats.

I've gone seriously off-topic here...just needed a rant, I guess lol.

Anyway, carry on...

Res...

[Rum]

It is probablethat Maslow's hieratic of need is more influential and persistent than Communist ideology, the policies of individual administrations in our democratic societies and probably even the bible. It is taught in every sociology, politics, economics, and social work course on the planet and is at the heart one way or another of every government policy focused on that particular state's population.

Personally I go far too much for 'want' as it happens. With retirement looming that is going to have to change!

[AshtonBlack]

I avoid adverts at all costs. Because, as Thufir Hawat tells Paul, "The first step in avoiding a trap is to be aware of its existence."







edit:bad Englandeese.

[Feck]

I avoid adverts at all costs. But as Thufir Hawat tells Paul, "The first step in avoiding a trap is to be aware of its existence."

+1

[charlou]

Alain de Botton raised the issue of socially driven psychological 'need' in Status Anxiety ...

Accordingly, the possession of a great many material goods becomes necessary not principally because these goods yield pleasure (though they may do this), but because they confer honour. In the ancient world, a debate had raged among philosophers about what was materially necessary for happiness and what unnecessary. Epicurus for one, had argued that simple food and shelter were necessary, but expensive houses & luxurious dishes could safely be bypassed by all rational, philosophically minded people. However, reviewing the argument many centuries later in The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wryly pointed out that in modern, materialistic societies there were no doubt countless things which were unnecessary from the point of view of physical survival, but at the same time a great many more things had, practically speaking, come to be counted as 'necessaries', because no one could be thought respectable and so lead a psychologically comfortable life without owning them.

Since Smith's day, economists have been almost unanimous in subscribing to the idea that what defines, and lends bitterness to, the state of poverty is not so much direct physical suffering as the shame that flows from the negative reactions of others to one's state, from the way that poverty flouts what Smith termed 'the established rules of decency'. In The Affluent Society (1958 ), J.K. Galbraith proposed, with a bow to Smith, 'people are poverty-stricken whenever their income, even if adequate for survival, falls markedly behind that of the community. Even they cannot have what the larger community regards as the minimum necessary for decency; and they cannot wholly escape, therefore, the judgement of the larger community that they are indecent.'