Have, need, want

Things can be classified into three types:
  1. What you have
  2. What you need
  3. What you want
How much they overlap determines how satisfied you are with life.


A typical person:




Messed up:

The aim:


To me, the best way to maximize congruence would be to move what you want closer to what you need. But thats easier said than done, and requires considerable self awareness and analysis.

Once you want what you need, you've to focus on getting it. That would maximize congruence.


Which state are you currently in?

Comments

  1. 1. What you have
    2. What you need
    3. What you want

    I think Set1 and Set3 are mutually exclusive. For example, I have my medicine, I need my medicine. But I don't want my medicine. If I didn't have my medicine I would have wanted them.

    Messed up Person: Set1=Null && Set2 is a subset of Set3

    Aim: Set1=Set2 && Set3=Null

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is Anfield sounds like a statistician. I would definitely fall into the state of messed up....working on it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Anfield: It is a matter of definition. If you define 'want' as relevant for only things you don't have, then your interpretation is fine. I've used 'want' even for things you may have. You may have your parent's approval, or have a circle of friends, and you may 'want' them to remain that way.

    @Work in Progress: I know! He's an electrical engineer (so am I) We're all a bit messed up! :) (Only messed up people think up of such stuff..)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is it possible to HAVE something you neither WANT nor NEED? Except perhaps siblings... :P

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Divinite: Hehe.. We think that when we're younger and together, but when siblings part, trust me, you realize that you both need and want them..

    Your question suggests you're already at 'the aim' stage. Either that, or you're a very careful shopper! :P At least for me, there is a heck load of stuff I have that I didn't ask for, that I don't need and that I just want to get rid of. And I'm not just talking about 'things'.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well the basic error in this analysis I think is the fact that What you want is dependent on what you have and hence Venn diagram is not a right way to analyse both of them.. Also both the variables are time dependent which calls for a time series analysis. One of the ways to frame the problem is consider the residuals (what you want-what you have) and plot a 'candle' plot for that and consider whether you can reject/accept the Null Hypothesis that the long term mean == short term mean (or roughly the differences are random which can be tested by runstest command in MATLAB). If the difference is not random (with a constant mean) it means what you want is shooting above what you have with time and hence your life is becoming worse. (Sorry for the geeky answer :P)

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Nirjhar: I had been considering exactly the same thing (just before you posted this comment). :P

    I can see that studying maths in MIT has helped you understand my point. :P

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ Nirjhar: Enough of pseud .. we all know how much Math u knew bfore landing in MIT :P
    @Arslan: The diagram gives equal weightage to want, need and have but I think the overlapping of need and have will always be much more than have and want as you will have most of the things you need but very few of what you want. Hence, I would suggest the best way of maximizing congruence would be to have what you want and if can have what you want you will surely have what you need. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Nirjhar

    Sorry if i got it wrong.. but what if the residual shows a gradual reducing trend? [:P]

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Arslan
    Maybe I’m getting dumber or your analyses are getting random-er but thats one of the analyses that made least sense to me…

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Gunner: True, true.. You've justified your soon-to-be Princetonian status with that! :P But having (getting) what you want is easier said than done, isn't it? That is what we keep trying to do our entire lives, and I don't think that ever ends..

    @eternalmonotony: Your question seems to suggest your first option is right.. :| (And a gradual reducing trend for the residual obviously means you're getting what you want as time goes on)

    @Nirjhar: Have to say, seriously, your comment made a lot of sense. But if you consider the Venn diagrams as snapshots in time, then I think they're valid..

    ReplyDelete
  13. @The gunner-- How much you know something is also time varying as you can see.. :P

    @eternalmonotony --- Aziz answered your question I guess

    @Aziz --- Yeah it does.. A nice post.. :)I actually like all your posts other than those which involves a virtual female in it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Nirjhar: Thanks! :) You know there are other ways to know the 'real' stories.. :P

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ Aziz ..

    This one just simplifies evrythin in life

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ decreasing Trend : Point was, decreasing trend is preferable to a random difference or a constant mean :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. LOL, I love this. I always think the biggest problem with us humans is that we want too much. We are slaves to our desires...prisoners in them.

    How much of what we want do we really need? And how much of what we THINK we need, so we really need?

    I'd like to be free one day...

    BTW. I tried to comment earlier on a weaker internet connection, had problems, it wouldnt accept the comment :P But I'm on a different connection now.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Nikhil: Do you mean that in a good way or bad (as in, oversimplification)? But as you'll agree, all mathematical representations are simplifications.

    @eternalmonotony: Yes, it definitely is..

    @Azra: Exactly the kind of questions that prompted this post. :) And I haven't attempted to give any answers, because I don't think there are any.

    I enjoy your blog a lot but haven't commented recently because your posts are so personal that I would feel like I was intruding. Wanted you to know that it is appreciated and that I'm on your side. :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Somewhere beetween the typical person and 'the aim'... I'm not a sadhu or st... I've just always been like this...

    Very interesting, by the way!

    ReplyDelete
  20. @mixed: You don't need to be a sadhu or saint to be near the aim. You just need to be blessed and content! Good for you! :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. have u heard concept of 'Flow'?

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Vamsi: I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate. I don't know what you're talking about..

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Short Story: Puppy Love

Short Story: 'The Psychopath'

The Principle of Minimum Regret