Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: wants vs needs, luxury vs necessity Message-ID: <2635@randvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 12:32:49 EDT Article-I.D.: randvax.2635 Posted: Fri Aug 9 12:32:49 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 22:02:01 EDT References: <735@lll-crg.ARPA> <1742@reed.UUCP> <765@lll-crg.ARPA> Reply-To: edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) Distribution: net Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 49 From a posting by Andy Beals (bandy@lll-crg) quoting Lady Godiva (purtell@reed): > > [...] I think that hugs are very necessary and important. People need > > that kind of physical contact. > > This sort of physical contact is NOT important and is definitely NOT > necessary. [``Kin yew say "hermit"? Iah knew ya could!''] It is purely > a luxury, like eating chocolate or or not having to work on the weekend > or having a *friend. Hermits are quite uncommon, and are generally considered to be maladjusted. Sure, they exist, but so do other unusual type. Existance does not prove a generality. > > People need to be loved and accepted like that. > > Again, posh. Some people who have warped their minds such that they will > be Unhappy if they do not have this "love and acceptance" will invent > an imaginary being that "loves" and "accepts" them. Sometimes these > people will gather in groups and all fantasize about One Being. Haven't you just proved yourself wrong here? It must take a pretty strong *need* to motivate folks into creating such a ``fantasy''. > > I've > > known all kinds of people: Christians, college students, street kids (I > > was there once myself), very poor, very rich, very accomplished, etc. > > etc. and > > [...] I've never found a group of people under any circumstances, who > > didn't need that kind of thing. > > Are you sure that you don't mean "appreciate"? "Need" is a very strong word. Yes, *need*. Babies who aren't touched but otherwise are well cared-for generally *die*--something discovered in turn-of-the-century orphanages where the mortality rate approached 100%. (For references, check out Ashley Montagu's ``Touching--The Human Significance Of The Skin'', pages 77-81 and associated notes and bibliography). There is considerable evidence that touching remains an important need throughout life. Grown-ups don't die without it, of course, at least not in a physical sense. They can find substitutes. But distaste for all touching is generally a powerful sign of a severe personality disorder and a person that is profoundly unhappy. Hugs are *good* for you. > andy beals, bandy@lll-crg.arpa, {seismo,sun,gymble,mordor,dual}!lll-crg!bandy -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall