Want vs Need

[Lamb]

During this time of crisis where people should be self-isolating to avoid catching the virus or giving it to someone else (50% are asymptomatic according to new data), I see that people are having a difficult time understanding want vs need. Do you NEED to go out and get something in order to exist or is it just that you WANT it. I'm hearing people say they need to go out for an item but I know that there is no way that item causes them to continue to exist so they don't need it.

What are your thoughts on Want vs Need and how you see society behaving?

 

[NewCreation435]

I'm really dismayed at how people are hoarding. I've never seen the kind of bare shelves I saw yesterday when I went to the store. The entire isle of bathroom tissues and toilet paper was gone. The entire isle. Really people. If everyone just got what they needed instead of hoarding this problem wouldn't even exist

 

[tango]

During this time of crisis where people should be self-isolating to avoid catching the virus or giving it to someone else (50% are asymptomatic according to new data), I see that people are having a difficult time understanding want vs need. Do you NEED to go out and get something in order to exist or is it just that you WANT it. I'm hearing people say they need to go out for an item but I know that there is no way that item causes them to continue to exist so they don't need it.

What are your thoughts on Want vs Need and how you see society behaving?

I think the same question needs to be asked in reverse as well. In remote rural areas the question needs to be asked, do we really need to avoid going out at all unless it's essential? It's easy to just shrug and say there's an order to stay home but the orders often clearly permit exercise. If you live in a remote area it's easy to go out and about, go about a kinda-sorta-normal life, without coming into close contact with anyone else.

Essential also means so much more than providing an ability to continue to exist. I suspect we're going to see a mental health crisis closely following an economic crisis, which will indicate that merely existing isn't all there is to it. Hopefully we won't have too much of a surge in the suicide rate to really make the point.

 

[psalms 91]

I am rural and my county now has 4 cases, not sure where the numbers might go but if ccareful dont see a problem with it

 

[tango]

I am rural and my county now has 4 cases, not sure where the numbers might go but if ccareful dont see a problem with it

During our afternoon walk today my wife and I saw four other people out walking. Two were a couple we knew so we waved to them even though they were a good 100 feet away at the closest point. The next was a jogger coming the other way so we passed with about 20 feet of space. Finally we passed an older person we know so gave him a clear six foot buffer as we overtook him and exchanged a few pleasantries.

Hard to see any need to rein in outdoor activity when the population is so sparse. When I lived in the big city I usually couldn't even walk from my house ot my car without seeing more people than that.

 

[tango]

Another aspect to consider is that when the question "do you really need to..." is asked it's often little more than a question of whether our rights are really all that important.

Do I really need a house with a spare bedroom? (Unspoken subtext: A homeless person might need that room). Perhaps not, but if it's a free country I'l allowed to have a house bigger than what someone else believes I need.

Do I really need a car with a V8 engine? (Unspoken subtext: they are noisy, inefficient, polluting, whatever). Chances are I could do what I need to do just fine with a six-cylinder or even a four-cylinder. But as above it's legal to own one so I don't need to justify the decision.

Do I really need to go for a walk? (Unspoken subtext: What if you contract or spread this nasty virus) Maybe not, but if I have the right to go for a walk I don't need to justify myself in exercising that right.

In all these cases and many more variations on the theme the thinking shifts such that the individual is expected to justify exercising their rights rather than the state having to justify why rights are being restricted. When thinking shifts to the point that we need to justify what we are doing because some vaguely defined "other" might disapprove we start to turn towards some kind of totalitarianism dystopia where someone else decides what they consider us to need and we're not allowed to have or do anything over and above what they permit.

The focus must always be on justifying each and every time our rights are to be restricted rather than expecting us to justify why we need to do something.

 

[Lamb]

Another aspect to consider is that when the question "do you really need to..." is asked it's often little more than a question of whether our rights are really all that important.

Do I really need a house with a spare bedroom? (Unspoken subtext: A homeless person might need that room). Perhaps not, but if it's a free country I'l allowed to have a house bigger than what someone else believes I need.

Do I really need a car with a V8 engine? (Unspoken subtext: they are noisy, inefficient, polluting, whatever). Chances are I could do what I need to do just fine with a six-cylinder or even a four-cylinder. But as above it's legal to own one so I don't need to justify the decision.

Do I really need to go for a walk? (Unspoken subtext: What if you contract or spread this nasty virus) Maybe not, but if I have the right to go for a walk I don't need to justify myself in exercising that right.

In all these cases and many more variations on the theme the thinking shifts such that the individual is expected to justify exercising their rights rather than the state having to justify why rights are being restricted. When thinking shifts to the point that we need to justify what we are doing because some vaguely defined "other" might disapprove we start to turn towards some kind of totalitarianism dystopia where someone else decides what they consider us to need and we're not allowed to have or do anything over and above what they permit.

The focus must always be on justifying each and every time our rights are to be restricted rather than expecting us to justify why we need to do something.

I was hoping that this thread would be viewed in regards to the current situation of the self-isolation/quarantine enforcements and how some people are confusing their wants and pushing them into thinking they are truly needs.

Do you need a car with a V8 engine at the moment or is that just a want? Do you get where I'm going with this?

 

[tango]

I was hoping that this thread would be viewed in regards to the current situation of the self-isolation/quarantine enforcements and how some people are confusing their wants and pushing them into thinking they are truly needs.

Do you need a car with a V8 engine at the moment or is that just a want? Do you get where I'm going with this?

I'm not sure we really get to decide that on behalf of other people.

If we're allowed to go to the store to buy a candy bar and someone goes to the store to buy a candy bar, is it anyone else's place to tell them they shouldn't? It's worth watching the thought processes here, regardless of what's prompting it. As soon as we start expecting other people to rein in everything so they only do things that we agree they genuinely need where does it stop? When I do my grocery shopping this afternoon is it OK if I buy a steak? I don't need it, I could get by on boiled cabbage but, you know...

 

[Lamb]

I'm not sure we really get to decide that on behalf of other people.

If we're allowed to go to the store to buy a candy bar and someone goes to the store to buy a candy bar, is it anyone else's place to tell them they shouldn't? It's worth watching the thought processes here, regardless of what's prompting it. As soon as we start expecting other people to rein in everything so they only do things that we agree they genuinely need where does it stop? When I do my grocery shopping this afternoon is it OK if I buy a steak? I don't need it, I could get by on boiled cabbage but, you know...

Who said anything about telling someone what they should or shouldn't do? The thread is about understanding WANT vs NEED. I see people wanting things and saying they need to go out and get it...but they aren't understanding that their "need" isn't a necessity and during these times they should rethink whether they can do without for the time being? Have people become so spoiled that they think all their wants are needs?

Edited to add that your arguments aren't really addressing what I'm getting at.

 

[tango]

Who said anything about telling someone what they should or shouldn't do? The thread is about understanding WANT vs NEED. I see people wanting things and saying they need to go out and get it...but they aren't understanding that their "need" isn't a necessity and during these times they should rethink whether they can do without for the time being? Have people become so spoiled that they think all their wants are needs?

Edited to add that your arguments aren't really addressing what I'm getting at.

Unless I'm missing what you're saying your point is that if something isn't essential (however you define "essential") you shouldn't do it even if you are allowed to. Is that a fair summary?

 

[ValleyGal]

My fridge and freezer are relatively full. I do not need groceries. I have paper towel and toilet paper. All this could last probably 3 weeks if I am careful. But I don't. Why? I might need all I have in my pantry and freezer if we get sick. I don't need it, but I will need it "if." So when I am out of fresh stuff, one or both of us goes out to get it. It can't hurt to pick up bakery while we're out getting groceries. And toilet paper? We don't need any right now, but if we don't buy it as soon as we find it, chances are we won't be prepared for when we really do run out. I will need it later. No, I won't "need" it because I have a ream of paper we could crunch up and use, or dinner serviettes we could use and not flush. Won't stop me from buying toilet paper if I come across some, though.

 

[Lamb]

My fridge and freezer are relatively full. I do not need groceries. I have paper towel and toilet paper. All this could last probably 3 weeks if I am careful. But I don't. Why? I might need all I have in my pantry and freezer if we get sick. I don't need it, but I will need it "if." So when I am out of fresh stuff, one or both of us goes out to get it. It can't hurt to pick up bakery while we're out getting groceries. And toilet paper? We don't need any right now, but if we don't buy it as soon as we find it, chances are we won't be prepared for when we really do run out. I will need it later. No, I won't "need" it because I have a ream of paper we could crunch up and use, or dinner serviettes we could use and not flush. Won't stop me from buying toilet paper if I come across some, though.

At least you're recognizing that you have wants vs a current need. Yes, you might have future needs but it doesn't sound as if you're hoarding or purposely going to the store daily and possibly infecting others around you if you have the virus and are completely unaware (since about half who get it are asymptomatic).

What I'm noticing over the past 2 months is that the more in danger a community is with infections and deaths the more they ask the question "do I really need to go out and get something" vs those who live in an area where there are less positive test results. The ones who have yet to spike in test results are more inclined to take the chance of going out because they don't yet sense the danger. Once the danger comes to their area their mindset changes. That's how I'm seeing things as I watch daily the numbers changing in multiple areas and reading what people say and listening to how they think.

 

[tango]

At the same time the numbers I"m seeing suggest that the overall mortality rate in those under 50 is less than 0.5%

A virus, especially a virus spun into a Big Nasty Scary Thing by the media, is the kind of thing that scares us because we can't see it and because humans are generally very bad at assessing risk. If I go out while there's a Nasty Scary Virus floating around and anyone I know might have it, I'm probably thinking about the chance I might get it and die. But if I go out, regardless of whether the Nasty Scary Virus is nearby, I have no guarantee that I won't be taken out by a drunk driver, or a truck overtaking on a blind hill, or some nutjob who is off his meds who thinks I am the devil and God told him to kill me, or whatever else. But the media doesn't present us with daily updates on that.

People panic that the virus can cause heart damage. How many people die from obesity related causes, and yet the response to the knowledge of heart damage caused by obesity is that Dunkin Donuts releases a new donut filling and people stand in line for their 5000-calories-in-a-cup fix every morning.

 

[psalms 91]

Other than bread and milk I am good for about two months

 

[vince284]

“You can’t understand someone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes.” The media doesn't need to give daily updates to people with heart disease about people dying with heart disease or people that live in violent neighborhoods that they maybe shot today. Or to someone that lost a love one in a car accident that the roads are dangerous. People that have family members and friends that are sick with the virus or have died from it don't need to be reminded the difference of need or want. They will stay in, they will do what they can... it's those that haven't experienced it themselves or selfish enough that will get together or go shopping for what they want because it's their right. I have four family members sick right now, one was just released from the hospital this past weekend.

 

[tango]

“You can’t understand someone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes.” The media doesn't need to give daily updates to people with heart disease about people dying with heart disease or people that live in violent neighborhoods that they maybe shot today. Or to someone that lost a love one in a car accident that the roads are dangerous. People that have family members and friends that are sick with the virus or have died from it don't need to be reminded the difference of need or want. They will stay in, they will do what they can... it's those that haven't experienced it themselves or selfish enough that will get together or go shopping for what they want because it's their right. I have four family members sick right now, one was just released from the hospital this past weekend.

... and at a stroke we see why the "need" vs "want" argument needs to be flipped around.

People who have been sick may need to isolate themselves, whether they have the latest virus or something well known. People who are immune-compromised need to take extra care regardless of the latest media hobby horse. When my mother was fighting cancer we avoided visiting even if we had the slightest sniffle but we didn't expect everything else to shut down.

The roads aren't inherently more dangerous regardless of whether or not you lost someone in a road accident. The safety of the roads remains the same, it's just our perception of the risk that changes. If you were a victim of a violent crime last night the streets are no less safe tomorrow than they were two days ago, but your perception of the danger "out there" shifts. It's the same phenomenon that sees planes flying less than half-full on September 11 - the day isn't somehow cursed but a lot of people don't want to fly that day. I rode the London Underground two days after the bombings in 2005 - it was just as safe as it always was even if people were doing a lot of posturing to say how they weren't afraid.

The whole topic of "want" vs "need" seems like it is rapidly becoming just another way to judge people. To someone dealing with alcoholism a bottle of whiskey might be a genuine medical need so they don't end up in hospital with the DTs. To someone else it might be a pure luxury. How would you tell, just by looking at someone? Maybe it's easier to just take their picture and shame them on social media.

The person going to get paint might be indulging a "want". Then again maybe they know that if they don't keep busy they will relapse into some other problematic behaviors, so having something specific to do might be a genuine need for them.

The person at the hardware store might be buying stuff for a project that could wait, or maybe they are buying stuff that they need to replace something that failed. Is rewiring a room a project that could easily wait, or is it a crucial replacement so that your fridge can work again, or you can turn the heating on? How would you tell without interrogating someone and, even if you were to interrogate them, why would they answer a complete stranger?

In generic terms a loss of agency in any given situation is bad for mental health, so doing things other than a very narrowly defined things that Nanny State says are necessary could easily be seen as a "need" from the perspective of ongoing mental and emotional health. When Nanny State says we're only allowed to do things deemed necessary we should hardly be surprised that all sorts of things are claimed to be necessary.

 

[ValleyGal]

Want and need may also have an element of "self." A lot of people are going out to take care of self (want and need), without thought of others. They are not asking themselves (as I'm not) "do I need this enough to risk my health, my roomie's health, or the health of those I might come in contact with when I'm out?"

We are in global stress, and when I think about the stress response, not many of us are thinking with the thinking part of the brain. Most of us are reacting out of the limbic system - in part or in whole. The emotions (fear) are protecting survival. Therefore, we "think" (or rather, think we think") we need to go out and get more, hoard, invade someone else's space to grab the last bag of apples or spend $15 on a single roll of toilet paper. We use the limbic system to "justify" our behaviour. I believe this is what drives us to justify a want as a need.

 

[tango]

Want and need may also have an element of "self." A lot of people are going out to take care of self (want and need), without thought of others. They are not asking themselves (as I'm not) "do I need this enough to risk my health, my roomie's health, or the health of those I might come in contact with when I'm out?"

We are in global stress, and when I think about the stress response, not many of us are thinking with the thinking part of the brain. Most of us are reacting out of the limbic system - in part or in whole. The emotions (fear) are protecting survival. Therefore, we "think" (or rather, think we think") we need to go out and get more, hoard, invade someone else's space to grab the last bag of apples or spend $15 on a single roll of toilet paper. We use the limbic system to "justify" our behaviour. I believe this is what drives us to justify a want as a need.

To an extent, yes.

At the same time when things like toilet paper are scarce it's hardly surprising people become more prone to stock up when it does become available. Throw in the fact that people who would normally be at work during the day and performing bodily functions at work are now at home and using more toilet paper than normal and it's easy to see why people are buying more than normal. And for good measure there's no way of knowing what, if any, strategy is in place for lifting the restrictions so nobody knows whether they need to consider the next week, month, three months, or maybe longer. Toilet paper never goes bad so although it's arguably selfish to buy enough to last you a decade it doesn't come with any downsides (except maybe issues relating to storing it) to the individual.

There's also the question of actually looking at statistics and figuring just how much of a risk something represents. We never expected people to not go to the store based on the question of "do I need this enough to risk my life on the roads, and risk the lives of other road users?". For many people (i.e. those under about 50 years old) the mortality rate if you catch the virus (which is itself not a given) is no more than 1 in 200 (it's lower still among younger people).

Paying $15 for a roll of toilet paper seems very much like the limbic system at work. Assessing statistics, figuring risk and making a decision based on that isn't the sort of thing the limbic system does at all.

 

[ValleyGal]

Tango, you'd be surprised at how much "thinking" the limbic system does without our being aware of it, especially during stress response, because we are not using the rational, organized part of the brain. So we act based on what the limbic system tells the thinking brain - and the limbic system often wins out, especially for those who are not typically very self-aware.

In my area, there is a man who lives in the city, who went around and bought out all the toilet paper from all his nearby stores. He then sold it at inflated prices and made $100,000 in less than a month. This is what created the shortage. Do we chalk it up to greed or to panic and survival? Either way, it is because of him that we are now forced to either pay inflated prices or stand in grocery store lines for 2 hours before the store opens, for 4 days in a row before we even get close to maybe getting our hands on one package - and we have a toilet paper producer in the city!! We are forced to have "hoarding behaviour" because of the one guy hoarding and inflating.

I think it will be important to understand where a lot of behaviour is actually coming from in the next months, and to have compassion for the possibilities of why we do the things we do. I'm a pretty stable person, more "thinking" than "feeling" and can rationalize or justify just about anything. But being a very social person working in an 8 sq ft space in my bedroom and living with my ex in a 950 sq ft dark townhouse is driving me to irritability and anxious energy, and my behaviour shows it. How much worse is it for those who don't have this level of self-awareness or those who already live in their limbic system, like 99% of my clients?

The stress state can "tell" us that we need to hoard because maybe the threat is going to get worse, or maybe it's going to knock on my door. And that is what many people are acting on when they "think" they need something rather than just want it. And stats are not to be trusted - they are easily manipulated, and in my area, testing, confirmed, probable, and asymptomatic are all blurred... maybe they would be more trustable if everyone were tested every week, but it's mostly random (doctor's opinions) testing and uneducated guesses about asymptomatic carriers and those with mild symptoms, etc. The stats mean nothing, and the limbic system "knows" it.

 

[tango]

Tango, you'd be surprised at how much "thinking" the limbic system does without our being aware of it, especially during stress response, because we are not using the rational, organized part of the brain. So we act based on what the limbic system tells the thinking brain - and the limbic system often wins out, especially for those who are not typically very self-aware.

Sure, although detailed assessment of statistics in a way that can discuss statistics and probabilities with other people and form a decision that doesn't sound absurd when presented to someone else still seems like something more advanced than the limbic system.

In my area, there is a man who lives in the city, who went around and bought out all the toilet paper from all his nearby stores. He then sold it at inflated prices and made $100,000 in less than a month. This is what created the shortage. Do we chalk it up to greed or to panic and survival? Either way, it is because of him that we are now forced to either pay inflated prices or stand in grocery store lines for 2 hours before the store opens, for 4 days in a row before we even get close to maybe getting our hands on one package - and we have a toilet paper producer in the city!! We are forced to have "hoarding behaviour" because of the one guy hoarding and inflating.

People doing that certainly don't help matters but the desire to make a fast profit seems like a business decision rather than the limbic system taking over everything in sight. The trouble is that the shortage is caused by all sorts of things - people like the man you mention, people fearing what might happen tomorrow if they don't act today (both rational concerns and irrational fears) and buying a little more than they need, people being home all day when they would normally be at work and using more (paired with a concern for how they are suddenly going through so much more toilet paper, so perhaps they had better stock up).

I think it will be important to understand where a lot of behaviour is actually coming from in the next months, and to have compassion for the possibilities of why we do the things we do. I'm a pretty stable person, more "thinking" than "feeling" and can rationalize or justify just about anything. But being a very social person working in an 8 sq ft space in my bedroom and living with my ex in a 950 sq ft dark townhouse is driving me to irritability and anxious energy, and my behaviour shows it. How much worse is it for those who don't have this level of self-awareness or those who already live in their limbic system, like 99% of my clients?

This is a crucial point and very well put. It's very easy for people who live in big houses with large yards to say that we should stay indoors. It's a very different proposition for a family living in an overcrowded apartment with no yard space at all to actually live it. Even without the concept of self-awareness it's impossibly difficult for a family in overcrowded housing to manage, and adding the complications of a lack of self-awareness and maybe a child or two with special needs who would normally be receiving professional help for their needs but are now stuck at home, told not to even go outside and not even understanding why, and the situation becomes impossible.

The whole discussion over "want" vs "need" so often seems to come back to little more than a desire to control other people based on our assessment of what is a "need". If we decide something isn't a need and start seeking to publicly shame others who are doing those things they don't "need" we lose something of our own humanity. In the process we run the risk of creating the kind of society that would make the Stasi proud. Historically our culture has always been permissive - anything is permitted unless explicitly banned. My concern with a growing push that focuses on whether something is a "need", and expecting people to justify why they need something, risks flipping that around until we reach a situation where we can only have and do things if we can justify why they are necessary. We really need to flip much of the reasoning around - I don't necessarily need to go for a walk every single day but I want to, and in a free society the state should justify why it needs me to refrain from doing so. Perhaps in a hugely built-up area the state can justify such a need (although my view is that it should also clearly state what will end the restriction - "until further notice" isn't anywhere near adequate) but in a rural area like mine where I can walk for miles and come within 20 feet of another person there is no need for such a restriction.

The stress state can "tell" us that we need to hoard because maybe the threat is going to get worse, or maybe it's going to knock on my door. And that is what many people are acting on when they "think" they need something rather than just want it. And stats are not to be trusted - they are easily manipulated, and in my area, testing, confirmed, probable, and asymptomatic are all blurred... maybe they would be more trustable if everyone were tested every week, but it's mostly random (doctor's opinions) testing and uneducated guesses about asymptomatic carriers and those with mild symptoms, etc. The stats mean nothing, and the limbic system "knows" it.

The stress state can prompt hoarding but at the same time a rational thinking process can reason that it's time we went grocery shopping and it's probably a good idea to buy a little extra in case of future shortages. There's obviously a difference between buying enough for two weeks instead of one week and buying enough for two years instead of one week but I'm not sure it's safe to assume that buying more than usual is necessarily a sign of a stress response. When governments suggest we reduce the number of trips to the grocery stores and talk of self-isolating for two weeks at a time if we experience symptoms it's hardly surprising when those that can afford to go out and buy enough supplies to last 2-3 weeks. And at a stroke the modern concept of the just-in-time delivery splits at the seams because the levels of demand shift, meaning "just in time" became "a day late", triggering more desire to buy more because the store shelves were empty that time you were there.

You are right that statistics can be manipulated and distorted but they provide more to go on than the government saying "trust us, stay home, it's for your own good". At least with statistics we can form our own decision on what chances we consider worth taking, just like we do with everything else in life. We don't know how many people have the virus - so many could have it without symptoms - but the potential (likely?) existence of untold numbers of infections without corresponding increases in the number of deaths suggests the mortality rate is much lower than originally estimated.