Happiness: Between What We Want and What We Need--论文代写范文精选

在另一方面,想要是一种冲动，在个人满足感,快乐,愉快的感觉。因此,需要和想要的都是塑造的方式，生活在最愉快的方式，幸福是复杂的,从不是一个简单的术语。下面的essay代写范文进行讲述。

Abstract 
The paper presents a very simple toy model that is simulated to experience some aspects related to what is it people want and need when related to the social happiness. By outlining some short discussions related to the distinguishing of what we call “want” and “need”, we see how both microsocial aspects may emerge the happiness as well as the urge to innovate and affinity to the collective creativity and social progress. 
Keywords: happiness, want, need, social simulation

Introduction 
Our desire on things can come from what we want and what we need. While a want is a wish, a need is a necessity [2]. Qualitatively speaking we can say that a want is further to reach, relative to the desire on needing things. For needs can be described leveled, to stay alive, people should provide their basic needs, i.e.: food, dress, and shelter. Some other secondary needs are necessary to keep the urge of staying alive. The basic needs gives life to a human being, and some other needs are necessarily to make the living. In the other hand, a want is an urge within individuals for the satisfaction, pleasure, and pleasant feeling in their lives. Thus, the need and the want are both shaping the way we keep on living in the most pleasant way. Happiness is complex and never be a simple terminology [3]. 

Some works on behavioral economics are brought recently to surge what makes people happy, for collective welfare are simply emerged from happy individuals. In our case within the paper, happiness is related to the balance between two important constraints: what and how we desire things as we want and need them. When people cannot afford what they need, the want them. But it is a commonsense that not all want is sourced from the need. Some wants, even further, are not at all related to what we need. The tendency of a want can be directly related to the people acquisition of knowledge on things. It is obvious we will never want a thing that is unknown to us. 

The way people fulfill their needs is related to the local customs, values, and cultures in a community. There is a high heterogeneity when we talk about the specific things, how people provide themselves with their necessity. Culture teaches people to manage themselves on things they need for the sake of their sustainability and survivability in the society. In [4], we have discussed how social neighborhood may perplex the concavity of the demand curve, which is related to the way people feel happy or unhappy about things economically. On the other hand, the way people fulfill their wants is related to the knowledge of larger domain in society. The larger the social network in which one is involved, there is some possibility of enlargement of their wish list based on what they want. This is related to higher possibility of tendency that might drive the urgency for achieving what they want. A thing that is good for the collective progress in the community with the risk that may reduce the “peace in mind” as to the happiness related to the way individuals weighing the needs and the wants. These issues are discussed in the paper by proposing a very simple computational toy model and simulation that shows how the wants and the needs in society, collectively speaking, may arise to some global aspects like the average and local happiness among social agents, the clustering in social life relative to the happiness and the tendency for innovation and creativity.

Discussions 
The computational simulation is conducted in the 3-dimensional world of lattice grid where the agents are represented by lattices, of which globally is the torus: the lowest two-dimensional grids are pasted together with the highest, and the right grids with the left one [cf. 1]. After the initialization by giving uniformly distributed random index of things wanted and needed by agents, the updating rules are applied on every rounds. After sometime, the global view would reveal the spatial clusters of agents that are happy and not happy for weighing things they need and want regarding to the evaluation of their respective neighbors.

The experiments are brought with some different sizes of horizons Nω that could be seen as a representation of the size of knowledge of which they used as a media to be referred on things they desire. The resulting landscape of the simulation is shown in figure 3. Here, the bluest lattices showed the most happy agents and the red ones represent the unhappy agents for the large distance on things they needed and wanted. Obviously, the larger the horizon for the reference of things they wanted, the more clusters of the unhappy ones arise. Knowledge gives more things to be referred and chosen to be desired, yet, as figure 4 shows, the need meets the equilibrium fast.

However, if we think that the larger horizon of Nω as the access to information, we can see that the red dots in figure 3 may also represent the clusters of people with greater tendency for competition of social progress. It is logical that when people less happy with the local conditions, the vitality for pursuing better things are also greater. This gives us to the thought that extreme happy ones are those with less eagerness and curiosity for progressivity of the local surroundings. What can we learn from here? The acquisition of knowledge may just make people less happy but in socially big picture gives opportunity of the local surroundings for progress and innovation in their pursuit of happiness. When people don’t know lots of alternatives for things that may makes them happy, the happiness persists. The constraints between the value of Nω and Nη can bring us to the interesting realizations between what we call happy and what the things that may drive us to social and collective progress, for collectively we are not going anywhere when we have no idea what larger stakes that we want individually.

Concluding Remarks We presented the very simple models in which we can do some experiment on what we may want and what we need. By relating this issue with things that can bring happiness and unhappiness, we could see dynamically how social clustering can be related to things that made us happy or in a more advance perspective what drives the social progress. In our experiment, we can see that happiness is a individual decision. One cannot be truly happy if she keeps on wanting more than she needs and could have. It is interesting to see in the global picture and dynamical sense that contentedness is the gateway to happiness. In our simulation we can see that “irrational wants” limit the happiness individually yet, it can socially emerged collective progress for more and more innovation of life is perpetually driven. It does not matter if individuals have little in terms of material possessions. 

It is finding contentment with things that we possess. However, the unhappy and restless micro-social condition could also bring positive impact regarding to the weighing of the wants and the needs among agents. The large number of wants may bring a drive for further struggle in order to globally social progress, which in turn, is good for the collective aspects on creativity and innovation. Last but not least, the theoretical exploration of the paper is also brought as a proposal in the inquiries of social psychological approach on social happiness related to interdisciplinary works in the utilization of computational simulation that potentially give us more comprehensive views on the nature of social analysis.（essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。（essay代写)
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)