What Do People Want? (nber.org) 105
Abstract of a paper on NBER: We elicited over a million stated preference choices over 126 dimensions or "aspects" of well-being from a sample of 3,358 respondents on Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Our surveys also collected self-reported well-being (SWB) questions about respondents' current levels of the aspects of well-being. From the stated preference data, we estimate relative log marginal utilities per point on our 0-100 response scale for each aspect. We validate these estimates by comparing them to alternative methods for estimating preferences. Our findings provide empirical evidence that both complements and challenges philosophical perspectives on human desires and values. Our results support Aristotelian notions of eudaimonia through family relationships and Maslow's emphasis on basic security needs, yet also suggest that contemporary theories of well-being may overemphasize abstract concepts such as happiness and life satisfaction, while undervaluing concrete aspects such as family well-being, financial security, and health, that respondents place the highest marginal utilities on. We document substantial heterogeneity in preferences across respondents within (but not between) demographic groups, with current SWB levels explaining a significant portion of the variation.
full stomach, sex, good weather (Score:2)
And from time to time something to lessen the burden of boredom.
Re:full stomach, sex, good weather (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep. What people want can be described by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which was first published decades ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
For an older example of a list of what people want we can look to the Christian bible with their description of the works of mercy, this dates back centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The paper referenced looks to be quite long and unless there's someone that can point to something profound and new in there I'm not likely to read it all. The Maslow's hierarchy of needs compares well with Christian tradition so it's not like there's any deep mystery here or something changed in any fundamental way. If I were to dig further into history and other cultures I'd expect to find a similar list of needs, and in much the same order.
The fine summary appears to indicate they found some nuance on how people from differing demographics rate these needs. That likely holds some value for people that study human behavior but does such nuance mean anything in how we should act in society or set government policy? I have my doubts, especially if this means setting different policies based on race or gender as that could raise all kinds of questions on equality under the law.
Re: (Score:1)
Where is oxygen on the list? Neither Maslow nor any version of any Christian bible mentions it.
Seems to me that what people want most is whatever they have the least reliable access to, and what people value least is what they can take for granted.
Re: (Score:2)
And electrons! No one can survive without electrons! Where are those? "Neither Maslow nor any version of any Christian bible mentions it."
And this ashtray. That's all I need.
And Maslow certainly did cover that topic, just not using that word. And people in biblical times didn't know what oxygen was. Take your ignorance somewhere else.
At least the old generation of SuperKendalls would put their name on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Lamp.
I love lamp.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I swing a leg over it and hit the road, you'd have a hard time wiping the stupid grin off my face....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For that we can refer to the survival rule of threes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Every list on human needs will have some context and assumptions to define its interpretation. For those that wrote the Christian bible they'd likely not comprehend the need for oxygen like we do today. They'd certainly discover the need to breathe air at some point but they'd not have much understanding why. Since oxygen isn't exactly in short supply on Earth this isn't something that would likely come up on a list o
Re: full stomach, sex, good weather (Score:3)
Disagree.
Maslow's lacks cultural broadness and his methods were highly suspect.
https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/p... [simplyputpsych.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reminded on reading somewhere that all models are wrong but some models are helpful. Maslow was creating some kind of model for human behavior and so it will be wrong on some level. I would believe it helpful though as it tells people that it may not be all that helpful to address one's aesthetic needs if they are lacking in having their physiological needs met. I've seen this in Christian teachings too in where it means little to meet a spiritual need like educating the ignorant without first meetin
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: full stomach, sex, good weather (Score:2)
The opposite, it says they did not find differences between demographic groups.
Re: (Score:2)
lessen the burden of boredom.
Reminds me of the humorous dictionary entry for "Infinite loop: see loop, infinite", while it says there "loop, infinite: see infinite loop".
Why do you think sex and food triggers dopamine?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think sex and food triggers dopamine?
Because the genes want to make you survive and procreate, as that venerable muskovite [1] Richard Dawkins has said [2].
There is no explicit concern for your mental state manifested there.
1. See, e.g. https://history.starmus.com/ri... [starmus.com]
2. The Selfish Gene and others
Re: (Score:1)
One one of those three is something that policy makers can address, and it's the one where many developed nations seem to be failing somewhat, given how many people living there are overweight.
The big issue today is that the social contract that previous generations enjoyed is breaking down. Working hard doesn't guarantee a reasonable middle class lifestyle, in fact for most people it definitely won't bring one. Social mobility has declined steeply.
It turns out that a lot of the prosperity of the latter hal
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Faith tends not to bring happiness. Family certainly can do, but it's not for everyone, and even those who want it need to be able to afford it for it to be a source of real joy.
I'd say it's down to the cost of living, rather than people being told not to pursue those things.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd had to question your love life if you get sex and then say you need something to address your boredom as well. Have you considered experimenting with BDSM ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
If you think BSDM is a part of a "love life", you should question your ideas of what "love" is. And if you think it is "interesting", then I pity your boring life.
Re: (Score:2)
you should question your ideas of what "love" is.
A good part of love is respecting each other and sharing interests. And if you don't think BDSM involves this, then I can only conclude that everything you know about sex you got from nasty porn. You should fix that problem first.
Re: (Score:2)
Powerful projection, much loneliness, very strong hand your post emanates, young padawan.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the best of men...sex is only minutes out of the day....
What do you do with the other 23 hours go avoid boredom?
That's what toys I like guns and motorcycles were created for!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the best of men...sex is only minutes out of the day....
Jesus Christ, are you bored or is you wife. Sex isn't just penetrate, cum and pass out man. You should make an entire evening of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Err....marriage is good for some, but not everyone wants to be stuck with the same chick for life...
You know the definition of "eternity"?
It's that horrible amount of time you have to endure between when you cum,and she leaves....
Age difference (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Loose shoes, tight pussy, and a warm place to shit.
Given its obvious referent, this was intended as a childishly racist comment, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
What in the world was racist about that statement?
Seems pretty basic to all mankind to me...?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taken OUT of context....it still pretty much fits most ALL men.
Re: (Score:2)
Good Pussy & Good Weed (Score:1)
Next question.
Re: (Score:2)
For you young'uns, there used to be a quote for this...
Ass, grass, and gas
Re: (Score:3)
For you young'uns, there used to be a quote for this...
Ass, grass, and gas
Except that the complete bumper sticker -- Ass, grass, or gas, nobody rides for free -- has a completely different meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. This was stating the required ride fee for any potential hitchhikers that might get picked up. It was meant as a joke (mostly).
"may overemphasize abstract concepts" (Score:5, Insightful)
Academic euphemory for: The shit we peddle doesn't mean anything to anyone.
Re: "may overemphasize abstract concepts" (Score:2, Interesting)
Much like "euphemory". Did you make that up just for this post?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
And then I thought about it, and researched it. Pretty good neologism, I think. I'm the first to use it, as far as I can tell. I've concluded that it's apt and pithy, and I'm astonished that it's never appeared before.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
An artifact of euphemistic language. As opposed to euphemisation: the employment of euphemisms. That's how I'd define it, anyhow.
Actually creating euphemisms? You have me there. There is "bowdlerization," but I don't feel that quite captures what you likely mean.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Academic euphemory for: The shit we peddle doesn't mean anything to anyone.
The entirety of TFS reads like the writer has a doctorate in genderized statistics.
If that's Acedemic eupheomory, I'll take two of whatever the professor is smoking.
Re: (Score:1)
Academic euphemory for: The shit we peddle doesn't mean anything to anyone.
Good word! Self referential.
It simultaneously evokes the feeling after a satisfying bowel movement, preaching to the choir, circular logic, and sophist logorrhea.
Academic euphemory: the useless self satisfied result after ingesting or regurgitating academic euphemory.
Re: (Score:2)
Euphemory -- I like it.
Answers why so many are unhappy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Being part of a family is so important, but fewer are obtaining it.
Re: Answers why so many are unhappy... (Score:2)
Only in the West. Many people are just scraping by to survive day to day, if not being bombed to rubble with the West cheering on.
So who cares if we're unhappy with our 40 pounds overweight while we watch AI fart streaming all day.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah....I, for one, don't see American women as particularly desirable.
I met my Russian wife on vacation in Egypt. I could not have done better with an American woman. No way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Gen X had a more realistic view of adulthood. We were the first to acknowledge there was no reason a woman shouldn't have a big glamorous career if that's what she wanted, but we were realistic enough to understand that you can't really operate at the extremes of career success and also be that perfect parent you might also want to be. "You can't have it all" was a common saying amongst Gen X, and it meant exactly that. It applied to men too, and our movies of the time were full of plotlines wher
Re: (Score:2)
Being part of a family is so important, but fewer are obtaining it.
Some families deserve to fail and people are better off without them. My family always treated me like shit because of my father's shit decisions and my mother trying to protect me.
Re: (Score:2)
They all go back to the cost of living. That's the primary reason why people can't have as many children as they want, why they work too many hours in bad jobs, why they can't afford to go out and socialize so instead go on social media.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a child...my parents, and most parents of kids I grew up with....sacrificed having BIG houses and every new "shiny" on market, to afford to have, house and feed their children.
Their priorities were different .....
I will agree, however, that social media is a HU
Honestly it looks like money to me (Score:2)
Right off the bat you are going to need a really really expensive vehicle. Bare minimum you are going to need to drop at least $500 a month and that's for an economy car. If you want something that is comfortable to drive if you're taller than 5 ft 2 then add another $200-$300 to that. I'm going to ignore all th
It's evolution now (Score:3)
Less change (Score:2)
Less change, more stability and reliability of all the software in our life.
I just want one thing (Score:2)
An end to greed.
That'll improve everything else in life.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why elon musk is paying for work on neuralink, the (nearly) universal empathy sharing device.
Once it is in your head and on, you will love him and despair.
Re: (Score:2)
Severance. Its for severance.
(But kudos for the "love him and despair" reference.)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not going to give a Gordon Gekko style explanation on how greed is good, but I will instead point to how moderation is good. Is there such a thing as greed in moderation? I'll attempt to make an argument to that effect.
People need things to live, like food and shelter. Someone that thinks nothing of their own needs, instead giving all they have to others, simply will not survive for long. People need to seek out these things, and that can mean taking from others in a way that could be considered gre
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that greed is (partialy) good or that creating rules to mitigate it won't work sounds to me like an excuse to keep things as they are because it takes work or one fears to lose what they have.
Sure, greed is in our nature and it'll never disappear, but a society without greed will function perfectly well.
Re: I just want one thing (Score:2)
second that.
I am amazed peace of mind (as Hindu+Yogic/Buddhist meditation practices inculcate) is not on the list.
âïðY(TM)ðYðY--
Wow - long-multi-syllable words! Inpressive! (Score:1)
Am I confused or are they confused? (Score:5, Interesting)
A statement like "suggest that contemporary theories of well-being may overemphasize abstract concepts such as happiness and life satisfaction, while undervaluing concrete aspects such as family well-being, financial security, and health," would make sense if each of those is a distinct commodity and we are just learning whether people prefer cars, watches, or ipads; but if they are not it becomes sort of nonsensical. If I'm stressed and unhappy because I'm financially underwater and dread each day's pile of bills am I saying that I value 'financial security' because I don't value 'happiness'; or precisely because I do value happiness and financial insecurity is the immediately obvious barrier to happiness?
Is there something clever they've done that solves the problem that I'm just being dense about; or is there just an implicit assumption that all the variables being compared are independent; when some could actually be dependent(even to the extent of being synonymous)?
Again, I am open to the possibility that I'm just not understanding the clever move; but this sounds like someone saying "We've determined that, contrary to popular belief, 'flour', 'milk', 'butter', and 'chocolate chips' may be more heavily valued than 'the taste of cookies'" with some formal-sounding stuff about marginal utility to distract them from the fact that it sounds like people are saying they want to make some cookies, potentially because they like the taste.
Re: Am I confused or are they confused? (Score:3)
And THIS is the kind of post I hoped would be at the top of the mod heap.
Very thoughtful! Thank you.
I worked like to add two things:
One, this study seems as if it would look at what people THINK they want.
Two, it is what they want right now. As we move toward a world where more and more people have less and less, I argue this is what people want right now, rather than what brings contentment long term.
Finally, as a Buddhist, I argue people REALLY REALLY have no idea that what they are looking for is a calm
Re: (Score:2)
They did take it into account. The methodology is to present two changes and ask "Which would you prefer?", but there's an exception handler for the respondent who wants to say "That doesn't make sense" and the reasons that they can give for why include "They're not independent".
They are definitely confused, though, because the title of the paper is "What do people want?" and yet the description of the methodology makes clear that they only asked residents of the USA. This person wants USians to recognise t
Re: (Score:2)
For what my opinion's worth, I'd say it really is as empty as it sounds.
It's 0% AI per the detectors, so reasonably likely to be written by a human...but still empty of meaning and as per the many elements you point out, it makes no common-sense to atomize these variables as independent.
What do people want (from Slashdot editors)? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
More Cowboy Neil options in the site polls. (and in my case, to bring back the April fools day gag posts)
Amazon Mturk is not representative (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazon Mechanical Turk pays about $2/hour for your time. People who spend time answering questions and doing tasks on MTurk are hardly a representative sample of humankind.
Re: (Score:3)
This, people filling surveys for a pittance because presumably they really need money, are worried about financial security, what a strange coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
No mod points, but THIS.
SWB is bull because... (Score:2)
...people know what they want but not what they need. That chasm results in lack of fulfillment and depression.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they know both, and I think you have a non-obvious definition for "what they need".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be contrary but I think you might be an example of whom I'm talking about.
What people need is a feeling that the effort they put forward leads to an improvement of their immediate environment as well as society.
Working for money usually does not provide that. If people knew this, they would much more help in soup kitchens, clean the neighborhood, help fix a playground and so forth.
The fact that across the board charitable work, whether formal or incidential, has trouble finding willing participants m
Uhm.... (Score:2)
Who responded? (Score:3)
sure, but do they still want it, if they have it? (Score:2)
What do I want? (Score:2)
They are not wrong (Score:2)
I think they are on to something. A lot of us are on a mental journey where we believe that if we are not happy all the time, there is something wrong with us. I've found that both sexes are affected, but perhaps more profoundly among females.
There is a reason why there is an ever increasing demand (and corresponding supply) of antidepressants. And one antidepressant isn't enough now.
Money (Score:2)
When do we want it? Now!
Summary (Score:3)
Individuals are different (Score:2)
An artist or musician may want the freedom to pursue their art or music without having to worry about paying the bills
An engineer may want access to tools and technology to see their ideas realized, whether or not there is a market for them
A scientist may want to study their field of interest without needing to write grant proposals
In general, many people would prefer to do what they love without having to conform to the economic rules of the time
What do people want? (Score:2)
More than an abstract posted on /. A summary would be nice.
What do americans want? (Score:2)
I suspect that if they conducted the same survey in a country that had a free health service (or a very low cost one) then the priorities would be very different. Likewise, if they performed the same analysis in an autocratic country, their results would be skewed by that, too.
Re: (Score:1)
People in countries with free health services want free health services. That's why they have them.
If you took them away, they would still want free health services.
Simply because you HAVE something doesn't mean you no longer want it. It just means that you have it, and can now focus on other things you want, but do not yet have.
too few (Score:2)
Not enough respondents to make it statistically meaningful. Ignore.
AI generated? (Score:2)
Did AI write this?
This needs a retro encabulator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
A livable planet for our chidlrens future. (Score:2)
I dont care what their shitty market research says.
blurry foundation == blurry conclusion (Score:3)
This NBER working paper ambitiously tackles a question that has puzzled philosophers, economists, and psychologists for centuries: What do people actually want? Unfortunately this paper doesn't even come close to answering that question in a reliable way. What it is, actually, is a high-resolution map of human values, drawn from data that looks suspiciously like a misaligned Rorschach test: rich in subjective projection, flattened into false precision by clever math.
The primary disconnect in this paper is how they are asking their main question. The paper isn't asking respondents directly what they say they want, but what they would choose when asked to make tradeoffs between different aspects of well-being. This is an important distinction, and it undermines the usefulness of their conclusions. Asking MTurk respondents to choose between “life satisfaction” and “feeling respected” becomes less an act of preference revelation and more a structured daydream scored with econometric flair. It’s a Rorschach test with sliders, and the inkblots are pre-labeled.
Another down check is their methodological failure to account for the known bias in MTurk respondents, which skew white, college educated, and lower income. There’s no statistical weighting or demographic re-weighting in this paper to align the MTurk responses with national census demographics. This means the estimated marginal utilities reflect the preferences of the MTurk population, not necessarily the U.S. population. What they do instead is deploy a hierarchical Bayesian model to capture variation across individuals -- basically, they want us to believe that even among this skewed sample there is huge individual variation, and that even with this bias, it says something interesting about how diverse preferences really are.
Their methodology is pretty straight forward -- they collected over a million tradeoff choices from 3,358 MTurk respondents. Participants compared improvements across 126 life dimensions—things like “your children’s health,” “your financial security,” “your sense of purpose,” “how respected you feel,” etc. From these, the researchers estimate a set of relative marginal utilities, in effect ranking which aspects of life people value most per hypothetical unit of improvement. Their conclusion? Family, health, and financial security dominate. “Your children’s health” ranks roughly 67 times more important than the average item. By contrast, generic metrics like “life satisfaction” or “happiness” rank surprisingly low. The authors even attempt to control for social desirability bias and interpret heterogeneity using a supply-and-demand framework for well-being. All these methods are technically adept, and impressive from a purely abstract POV, but here’s the problem: their entire model hinges on the assumption that these 126 aspects of life are distinct, isolatable dimensions. I’m not buying it—and unless you’re in the habit of accepting modeling assumptions as revealed truth, you probably shouldn’t either.
When a respondent weighs “your children’s health” against “your financial security,” are they really comparing orthogonal quantities? Or are they processing a cognitively entangled bundle of implications—stress, identity, family dynamics, money worries, etc.? If the categories overlap (and I suspect many do), then the marginal utility values produced by the model inherit that ambiguity. It's like pouring a smoothie made from oranges, bananas, and mangoes, then asking respondents to rate which fruit matters most—and using a Bayesian model to assign each fruit a marginal utility to three decimal places. If your input is a fruit blend of emotionally loaded concepts, your output is statistical precision wrapped around conceptual mush. Yes, it gives you internally consistent math—but c
Re: (Score:2)
I’d argue the error bars aren’t just statistical—they’re ontological.
I appreciate the argument, but while I understand all the words in the sentence, I'm not sure what you mean by them here. Congrats on reading the paper btw, you're suddenly more knowledgeable than 99% of the people commenting.
What do you want? (Score:2)
Never ask that question! [youtube.com]