? Or 
? What I want, is it ...what I really need
And what I need, is it ...what I really want?
Here are questions that make aspirin sell!
Needs
Definition
Let us give the broadest definition, as what is called needs goes further
than basic necessities.
A person usually considers more or less strongly as a need any
than basic necessities.
A person usually considers more or less strongly as a need any
- desire, appetite, expected
satisfaction, want, wish,
dissatisfaction and lack,
- more generally, motive,
drive,
felt by that person.
To this hotpot, we can add any incentive the person is not conscious of but that can
intervene in its behaviors. The hidden part of the brain !
To this hotpot, we can add any incentive the person is not conscious of but that can
intervene in its behaviors. The hidden part of the brain !
=> That makes a lot of needs!
In that extensive sense, human needs have no limit.
Can we objectively sort needs?
Not
easy to sort all those needs, and a bit risky and pretentious to decide
which ones
are respectable and which ones could be futile or even dreadful.
Some difference is usually made anyway
are respectable and which ones could be futile or even dreadful.
Some difference is usually made anyway
- By moralists,
with some subjectivity, and sometimes dogmatism,
between good and unethical needs.
between good and unethical needs.
- By lawyers,
They have their list of what it is not allowed to do, the rest is considered
permitted)
permitted)
- By economists,
with maybe more attempt at scientific objectivity, between what could be
basic simple needs (i.e. food...) and higher more sophisticated
ones (i.e artistic ones),
Those last "deep seated" ones are here since the dawn of mankind.
But they do not belong fully to the
economic realm with the
production - allocation - distribution system it entails.
basic simple needs (i.e. food...) and higher more sophisticated
ones (i.e artistic ones),
Those last "deep seated" ones are here since the dawn of mankind.
But they do not belong fully to the
economic realm with the production - allocation - distribution system it entails.
Abraham Maslow theorized this under the form of a pyramid of needs.
- In theory a person would experience those higher needs only after
its basic ones are sated. First the sauerkraut, then the Opera.
- In practice, this hierarchy is not so clear cut.
Various needs might interfere.
Not easy to attribute a move to a precise one
Also the hierarchy might differ from one person to the other,
It can even vary for the same person in different situations.
This leads to a specific aspect described below:
individual preferences.
Not easy to attribute a move to a precise one
Also the hierarchy might differ from one person to the other,
It can even vary for the same person in different situations.
This leads to a specific aspect described below:
individual preferences.Preferences
Coffee or tea?
People classify consciously or unconsciously their needs, in other words they have
preferences
The order of preference
- differs from a person to the other.
- also can be changing and fuzzy.
=> There is an ambiguity here that raises two issues:
People classify consciously or unconsciously their needs, in other words they have
preferences
The order of preference
- differs from a person to the other.
- also can be changing and fuzzy.
=> There is an ambiguity here that raises two issues:
1) are preferences usually transitive?
2) are intentions and goals stable and conscious?
2) are intentions and goals stable and conscious?
1) Preference transitivity...
Preferences are said to be transitive, which means that:
* If somebody prefers A to B
* and also prefers B to C,
* he/she normally prefers A to C
But in real life it is not always the case.
I might prefer oranges to apples and prefer apples to grapes but I might prefer
grapes to oranges. And what about preferring apples to sardines but sardines
to oranges ?
Another thing is that somebody's preferences might differ according to the type
of activity pursued, or of situation, and might change from one day to another.
There can be preference reversals : risk averse in one case, risk taker in
another one
I might prefer oranges to apples and prefer apples to grapes but I might prefer
grapes to oranges. And what about preferring apples to sardines but sardines
to oranges ?
Another thing is that somebody's preferences might differ according to the type
of activity pursued, or of situation, and might change from one day to another.
There can be preference reversals : risk averse in one case, risk taker in
another one
2) Intentions and goals.
Some preferences might be particularly conscious or even clearly formalized:
we enter here the realm of intentions,
goals, objectives that are crucial
decision making factors.
we enter here the realm of intentions,
goals, objectives that are crucial decision making factors.Many people "have an agenda". It can motivate them to act even in the lack
of external events that work as stimuli.
This is a dent in the behaviorist theory that focuses on a
"stimulus => reaction" process.
Other preferences are less consciously stated and pursued but might anyway haunt
the unconscious self, influence decisions, and even be in conflict with the stated goals.
the unconscious self, influence decisions, and even be in conflict with the stated goals.
The economic side: utility and ophelimity
Various human needs can be satisfied through economic activities, notably consumption.
We can call them "economic needs".
Actually, economics is an area of knowledge that studies how resources (production
and production means...), which are limited, are alloted when facing potentially
unlimited needs.
We can call them "economic needs".
Actually, economics is an area of knowledge that studies how resources (production
and production means...), which are limited, are alloted when facing potentially
unlimited needs.
A) Economic utility
Is it worth the 
price?
Economic utility is, to simplify things a bit, a number that represent the personal
monetary value somebody attributes to something (product, service...) that satisfies
a need and can be obtained only in exchange against something else or against money.
This value is linked to
price? Economic utility is, to simplify things a bit, a number that represent the personal
monetary value somebody attributes to something (product, service...) that satisfies
a need and can be obtained only in exchange against something else or against money.
This value is linked to
- that person's preferences between its various expected satisfactions,
- and also of course its own financial possibilities
Economic utility, as a more or less conscious monetary value, is a criterion a
person uses to decide to purchase or sell things, services, assets, work contributions,
by comparing that number to the price asked or offered (market price,
price list, price proposal...).
person uses to decide to purchase or sell things, services, assets, work contributions,
by comparing that number to the price asked or offered (market price,
price list, price proposal...).
The economic utility theory considers that people have a precise idea about that number.
This is truly ...theoretical.
=> In reality people have often a ratherfuzzy and
instinctive idea on how to value their utility.
Also many behavioral biases, such as cognitive flaws, emotional distortions
and automatic / unconscious responses can distort or overcome their perception
of utility.
B) Ophelimity
Some see, on the basis of their own criteria, a difference between what people want and
what they really need.
In their normative mind they consider that value would be based on some "objective"
usefulness and that rationality and morality should be the criteria to justify utility.
what they really need.
In their normative mind they consider that value would be based on some "objective"
usefulness and that rationality and morality should be the criteria to justify utility.
This philosophical approach is quite legitimate ...to some extent.
All along History, there has been fundamentalists that condemned about every
satisfaction, seeing in it the hand of the devil or a crime against the common
good (see below), of course with their own definition of those notions.
This approach cannot be called fully objective as it would bring subjective categorizations
that would not really fit economic reality and reasoning.
Actually, people might consider, either legitimately or perversely, as desirable certain
things that others would consider futile or even harmful for them or for other people.
But who is right in such subjective appreciations?
In this sense, a more general appellation for all personal needs or values, that skirts the
rational or moral undertone proper to the utility word, is ophelimity (or desirability).
that would not really fit economic reality and reasoning.
Actually, people might consider, either legitimately or perversely, as desirable certain
things that others would consider futile or even harmful for them or for other people.
But who is right in such subjective appreciations?
In this sense, a more general appellation for all personal needs or values, that skirts the
rational or moral undertone proper to the utility word, is ophelimity (or desirability).
C) Common good, 
social utility
Some needs are considered common to everybody, an idea that makes some political
philosophers propose that a high authority enforce their general application and
procurement over individual freedom.
This is another normative approach. However understandable could be its
motive, (although some domination tendency might be behind) it is also a slippery
issue as a lot of subjectivity might also intervene, and as, in practice, perverse effects
can interfere.
What kind of "common good" or "social utility" should drive the political system, and
to what extent, is the source of an heated debate that goes beyond what this article is
about.
A topic for your Tuesday night philosophical café!
philosophers propose that a high authority enforce their general application and
procurement over individual freedom.
This is another normative approach. However understandable could be its
motive, (although some domination tendency might be behind) it is also a slippery
issue as a lot of subjectivity might also intervene, and as, in practice, perverse effects
can interfere.
What kind of "common good" or "social utility" should drive the political system, and
to what extent, is the source of an heated debate that goes beyond what this article is
about.
A topic for your Tuesday night philosophical café!
Reference and further readings
More details on those various notions are found in the
Behavioral finance glossary
Notably the needs, preferences and utility articles
Back to collection: economic articles migrated from Knol
Back to collection: decision psychology articles migrated from Knol
Pageviews for this article before migration from Knol: 3.5 k
Behavioral finance glossary
Notably the needs, preferences and utility articles
Back to collection: economic articles migrated from Knol
Back to collection: decision psychology articles migrated from Knol
Pageviews for this article before migration from Knol: 3.5 k
|
|