What do you think?
Rate this book
Possessed: Why We Want More Than We Need
Ownership is on most people's lips these days, or at least the lack of ownership. Everywhere people seem to be fighting over what is theirs. They want to take back their property, their lands, their liberty, their bodies, their identity, and their right to do what they want. These demands are quite remarkable when you consider that ownership is not an observable property but rather an abstract concept. And yet this abstract concept controls just about everything we do, and rarely do we stop to consider how it rules our lives. Ownership even explains the anger and political turmoil that is currently sweeping over Western democracies: people feel they have had something taken away, something they used to own in the past and want back.
Possessed is the first accessible book to consider the psychological origins and future of ownership in a rapidly changing world. It reveals how we are compelled to accumulate possessions in a relentless drive to seek status and approval by signalling our values to others by what we own. It traces the history of ownership but looks to the future as our drive to own will need to adapt to environmental and technological change.
Possessed is the first accessible book to consider the psychological origins and future of ownership in a rapidly changing world. It reveals how we are compelled to accumulate possessions in a relentless drive to seek status and approval by signalling our values to others by what we own. It traces the history of ownership but looks to the future as our drive to own will need to adapt to environmental and technological change.
224 pages, Hardcover
Published September 3, 2019
69 people are currently reading
917 people want to read
About the author
Bruce M. Hood
11 books130 followersI was born in Toronto, Canada, and my middle name is MacFarlane. This a legacy of my Scottish heritage on my father's side. My mother is Australian and has the very unusual first name of Loyale. I used to believe for many years that she had two sisters called Hope and Faith, but that was just my fertile imagination. Why Toronto I hear you ask. My father was a journalist and plied his art on various continents. By the time I had finally settled in Dundee, Scotland, at 8 years of age, I had already lived in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. If you are wondering, I support Scotland during the Rugby World Cup. I have an older brother who was also born in Toronto, but he doesn't have a mid-Atlantic accent like I do. He is sensible. He is a lawyer.
In Dundee, I went to school and then university where I studied psychology and socializing. I then went to Cambridge to conduct research on visual development in babies. Not because they are cute, but because their visual system is so interesting. I completed my Ph.D. in two years in 1991. That year I got married with a "Dr." in front of my name to my wife who is a real doctor and would not marry me until I was doctored. After a brief research period in London, we both set off to Boston, Massachusetts, to sample some U.S. academic life for a year. By the time we were ready to travel, we were now three, as my eldest daughter had been born. When my wife wasn't paying attention, I applied for and was given an associate professorship at Harvard. I interviewed without telling her. What was supposed to be just one year abroad in the United States turned into five. I do stuff like that all the time.
We decided that we wanted to raise our daughter in the U.K. because we did not want her to call us "Mom" and "Pop," or by our first names. So, 10 years ago, we moved back to the countryside just south of Bath. If you have ever been there, you'll know why. I work in the psychology department at the University of Bristol nearby. I conduct research, teach, and of course, write books. We have a second daughter now, and we all live in a medieval barn with mice. I also bought that without telling my wife. That's where I am up to now.
In Dundee, I went to school and then university where I studied psychology and socializing. I then went to Cambridge to conduct research on visual development in babies. Not because they are cute, but because their visual system is so interesting. I completed my Ph.D. in two years in 1991. That year I got married with a "Dr." in front of my name to my wife who is a real doctor and would not marry me until I was doctored. After a brief research period in London, we both set off to Boston, Massachusetts, to sample some U.S. academic life for a year. By the time we were ready to travel, we were now three, as my eldest daughter had been born. When my wife wasn't paying attention, I applied for and was given an associate professorship at Harvard. I interviewed without telling her. What was supposed to be just one year abroad in the United States turned into five. I do stuff like that all the time.
We decided that we wanted to raise our daughter in the U.K. because we did not want her to call us "Mom" and "Pop," or by our first names. So, 10 years ago, we moved back to the countryside just south of Bath. If you have ever been there, you'll know why. I work in the psychology department at the University of Bristol nearby. I conduct research, teach, and of course, write books. We have a second daughter now, and we all live in a medieval barn with mice. I also bought that without telling my wife. That's where I am up to now.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
December 5, 2024
Hood’s compassionate breakdown of ownership surprised me. Often, when it comes to consumerism-type-of critique, it goes something like this: most people are stupid, insecure, even sheep-like; thus marketers manipulate them to buy things they don't need. While I don't disagree with that oversimplified statement, I would remove the “stupid” from it.
The author calls out the misconception that the Industrial Revolution, aka mass production, created consumerism. Wanting to own stuff, Hood explains, is inherently human—no other species does it unless it’s for survival or reproduction. We love beauty, aesthetics, and things that have meaning or can show our individuality way beyond their function.
Reading history, even Neanderthals wore necklaces from eagle claws to show off. And the Ancient Greeks? They loved aesthetics—their sculptures, temples, and even their mosaic floors inspire us to this day. Renaissance art? The paintings, the architecture, the furniture. No animal could have made it, for it had no benefit for survival.
The fast machines we built for cheap production made us just like them—mindless but efficient. The same desire that once drove us to create marble statues and masterpieces now has us grabbing the latest useless shiny thing, loving it for a minute, then tossing it aside for the next.
“Not only do we signal our self to others through our possessions, our possessions signal back to us who we are.”
The author calls out the misconception that the Industrial Revolution, aka mass production, created consumerism. Wanting to own stuff, Hood explains, is inherently human—no other species does it unless it’s for survival or reproduction. We love beauty, aesthetics, and things that have meaning or can show our individuality way beyond their function.
Reading history, even Neanderthals wore necklaces from eagle claws to show off. And the Ancient Greeks? They loved aesthetics—their sculptures, temples, and even their mosaic floors inspire us to this day. Renaissance art? The paintings, the architecture, the furniture. No animal could have made it, for it had no benefit for survival.
The fast machines we built for cheap production made us just like them—mindless but efficient. The same desire that once drove us to create marble statues and masterpieces now has us grabbing the latest useless shiny thing, loving it for a minute, then tossing it aside for the next.
“Not only do we signal our self to others through our possessions, our possessions signal back to us who we are.”
May 12, 2020
I immediately purchased this book once I got a link to this. I've been interested in Psychology, and human interaction for quite some time and I haven't found any books that explain/explore the reason behind why people want more things. As George Carlin ever said, "People need a bigger space to store stuff that you don't need with money that you don't have".
A reviewer of this book also said that if Marie Kondo's book is telling you that you should throw your things that don't spark joy (I haven't read that book BTW), then this book is telling you the reason behind it. And I agree to a degree.
Human is always possessed with things, especially if there is a memory attached to it. Who even knows that people can claim other people's body parts as their property? This book also explores the history of how child 'ownership' is still in practice.
My most favorite highlight from the book: "Not only do we signal our self to others through our possessions, our possessions signal back to us who we are". That illustrated how strong our possession defines us. Our mind is so attached with possession, to fill our void, to impress other people, to gain status.
This book is an incredible introduction to how we perceive possession. I would recommend this book to anyone who interested in 'why we want more things' to understand 'why we should simplify our lives' :)
A reviewer of this book also said that if Marie Kondo's book is telling you that you should throw your things that don't spark joy (I haven't read that book BTW), then this book is telling you the reason behind it. And I agree to a degree.
Human is always possessed with things, especially if there is a memory attached to it. Who even knows that people can claim other people's body parts as their property? This book also explores the history of how child 'ownership' is still in practice.
My most favorite highlight from the book: "Not only do we signal our self to others through our possessions, our possessions signal back to us who we are". That illustrated how strong our possession defines us. Our mind is so attached with possession, to fill our void, to impress other people, to gain status.
This book is an incredible introduction to how we perceive possession. I would recommend this book to anyone who interested in 'why we want more things' to understand 'why we should simplify our lives' :)
February 25, 2021
نزعة الامتلاك !
.
.
لو كان وجود الأرض بأكمله تم في 24 ساعة ، فإن جنسنا البشري ، الإنسان العاقل ، الذي نشأ منذ حوالي 300000 عام ، سيظهر في حوالي 5 ثوانٍ .
تمثل حياتنا الفردية وقتًا متناهي الصغر في حياة الكون. حتى أن وجودك هنا هو معجزة. إن احتمال ولادة أي منا هو صفر تقريبًا عندما تفكر في كل البويضات والحيوانات المنوية الأخرى التي لا تعد ولا تحصى والتي لم تلتق قط ، وجميع الأفراد الذين من المحتمل أن يكونوا موجودين ، مقارنة بأولئك الذين ولدوا بالفعل.
إذا كنت تقرأ هذا ، فمن المحتمل أيضًا أنك حصلت على بعض الفرص في الحياة التي حرم منها الكثيرون. لا يتم تقاسم التعليم والوصول إلى الكتب مع البشرية جمعاء. نحن محظوظون جدًا لوجودنا هنا ، حتى في مثل هذا الوقت القصير. ومع ذلك ، كيف نقضي عادة هذه اللحظة الثمينة من الوجود؟ في السعي الدؤوب للتملّك ، في الغالب ، والدفاع عما هو لنا من أولئك الذين يسعون إلى سرقته .
نحن محظوظون جدًا لوجودنا في المقام الأول ، ومع ذلك فإن الكثيرين منا الذين يعيشون في مجتمعات غنية يتبعون أنماط حياة تهدف إلى تجميع أكبر قدر ممكن من الأشياء ، اعتقادًا منهم أن هذا هو هدفنا في الحياة. بعد تلبية احتياجاتنا الأساسية ووسائل الراحة ، نادرًا ما يكون الحصول على المزيد من الأشياء مفيداً ؛ ومع ذلك ، هناك رغبة لا تشبع في امتلاك المزيد.
البشر ليسوا راضين عن الوجود فقط داخل الكون المادي ، ولكننا نشعر بالحاجة إلى المطالبة بأكبر قدر ممكن من الملكية ، لأننا نؤمن أنه كلما امتلكنا أكثر ، كلما كنا أفضل. أجسادنا المادية مصنوعة من جزيئات غبار النجوم من انفجار كوني بعيد ، لكننا نقضي الكثير من هذه الحياة في مطالبتنا بأجزاء من الكون! هذا ليس فقط خطأ فادح في تقدير أهميتنا ، ولكن السعي وراء ذلك لا طائل منه في النهاية.
خلال فترة وجودنا على هذا الكوكب ، نكافح من أجل الملكية ، ونحاصرها ونطمع إليها ونشعر أن أهداف الحياة تنبع من كل شيء يمكننا المطالبة بملكيته ، فقط كي نموت في النهاية و نعود إلى الغبار ولا نعرف أبدًا ما سيحدث للأشياء التي عملنا بجد للحصول عليها.
نقضي حياتنا في بناء القلاع الرملية بالأبراج والخنادق للدفاع ضدّ المتسللين ، ثم تجرفهم موجات الزمن. نحن لسنا جاهلين. نحن نعلم أننا لسنا خالدين ولا يمكننا أخذ الأشياء معنا ، لكن السعي وراء الممتلكات هو محرك شامل يمنح الكثير منا هدفنا في الحياة.
يتم تعريفنا بما نملكه ، والقوة النفسية للملكية قوية جدًا لدرجة أن الأفراد سيخاطرون بحياتهم للحفاظ على ممتلكاتهم. يجب أن يكون احتمال الموت بمثابة تذكير واقعي بعدم جدوى الملكية في نهاية المطاف.
في عام 1859 ، غرق 450 راكبًا على متن السفينة الملكية ، عائدين من مناجم الذهب الأسترالية إلى ليفربول ، عندما تحطمت سفينتهم قبالة الساحل الشمالي لويلز. كانوا مثقلين بالذهب لدرجة أنهم غرقوا بالقرب من المنزل. التاريخ والأساطير مليئة بقصص الحماقة المادية ، من أسطورة الملك ميداس بلمسته الذهبية ، غير القادر على تقدير ثروته ، إلى واقع الدورات الاقتصادية المتكررة للازدهار والكساد في العصر الحديث حيث تحطمت الحياة العادية بسبب المؤسسات المالية المقامرة مع الاقتصاد العالمي. ليس المقامرون فقط هم من يدمنون على تراكم الثروة ؛ بل كذلك يفعل غالبية البشر.
.
Possessed : المصدر كتاب
Bruce Hood : المؤلف
ترجمة ماهر رزوق
.
.
لو كان وجود الأرض بأكمله تم في 24 ساعة ، فإن جنسنا البشري ، الإنسان العاقل ، الذي نشأ منذ حوالي 300000 عام ، سيظهر في حوالي 5 ثوانٍ .
تمثل حياتنا الفردية وقتًا متناهي الصغر في حياة الكون. حتى أن وجودك هنا هو معجزة. إن احتمال ولادة أي منا هو صفر تقريبًا عندما تفكر في كل البويضات والحيوانات المنوية الأخرى التي لا تعد ولا تحصى والتي لم تلتق قط ، وجميع الأفراد الذين من المحتمل أن يكونوا موجودين ، مقارنة بأولئك الذين ولدوا بالفعل.
إذا كنت تقرأ هذا ، فمن المحتمل أيضًا أنك حصلت على بعض الفرص في الحياة التي حرم منها الكثيرون. لا يتم تقاسم التعليم والوصول إلى الكتب مع البشرية جمعاء. نحن محظوظون جدًا لوجودنا هنا ، حتى في مثل هذا الوقت القصير. ومع ذلك ، كيف نقضي عادة هذه اللحظة الثمينة من الوجود؟ في السعي الدؤوب للتملّك ، في الغالب ، والدفاع عما هو لنا من أولئك الذين يسعون إلى سرقته .
نحن محظوظون جدًا لوجودنا في المقام الأول ، ومع ذلك فإن الكثيرين منا الذين يعيشون في مجتمعات غنية يتبعون أنماط حياة تهدف إلى تجميع أكبر قدر ممكن من الأشياء ، اعتقادًا منهم أن هذا هو هدفنا في الحياة. بعد تلبية احتياجاتنا الأساسية ووسائل الراحة ، نادرًا ما يكون الحصول على المزيد من الأشياء مفيداً ؛ ومع ذلك ، هناك رغبة لا تشبع في امتلاك المزيد.
البشر ليسوا راضين عن الوجود فقط داخل الكون المادي ، ولكننا نشعر بالحاجة إلى المطالبة بأكبر قدر ممكن من الملكية ، لأننا نؤمن أنه كلما امتلكنا أكثر ، كلما كنا أفضل. أجسادنا المادية مصنوعة من جزيئات غبار النجوم من انفجار كوني بعيد ، لكننا نقضي الكثير من هذه الحياة في مطالبتنا بأجزاء من الكون! هذا ليس فقط خطأ فادح في تقدير أهميتنا ، ولكن السعي وراء ذلك لا طائل منه في النهاية.
خلال فترة وجودنا على هذا الكوكب ، نكافح من أجل الملكية ، ونحاصرها ونطمع إليها ونشعر أن أهداف الحياة تنبع من كل شيء يمكننا المطالبة بملكيته ، فقط كي نموت في النهاية و نعود إلى الغبار ولا نعرف أبدًا ما سيحدث للأشياء التي عملنا بجد للحصول عليها.
نقضي حياتنا في بناء القلاع الرملية بالأبراج والخنادق للدفاع ضدّ المتسللين ، ثم تجرفهم موجات الزمن. نحن لسنا جاهلين. نحن نعلم أننا لسنا خالدين ولا يمكننا أخذ الأشياء معنا ، لكن السعي وراء الممتلكات هو محرك شامل يمنح الكثير منا هدفنا في الحياة.
يتم تعريفنا بما نملكه ، والقوة النفسية للملكية قوية جدًا لدرجة أن الأفراد سيخاطرون بحياتهم للحفاظ على ممتلكاتهم. يجب أن يكون احتمال الموت بمثابة تذكير واقعي بعدم جدوى الملكية في نهاية المطاف.
في عام 1859 ، غرق 450 راكبًا على متن السفينة الملكية ، عائدين من مناجم الذهب الأسترالية إلى ليفربول ، عندما تحطمت سفينتهم قبالة الساحل الشمالي لويلز. كانوا مثقلين بالذهب لدرجة أنهم غرقوا بالقرب من المنزل. التاريخ والأساطير مليئة بقصص الحماقة المادية ، من أسطورة الملك ميداس بلمسته الذهبية ، غير القادر على تقدير ثروته ، إلى واقع الدورات الاقتصادية المتكررة للازدهار والكساد في العصر الحديث حيث تحطمت الحياة العادية بسبب المؤسسات المالية المقامرة مع الاقتصاد العالمي. ليس المقامرون فقط هم من يدمنون على تراكم الثروة ؛ بل كذلك يفعل غالبية البشر.
.
Possessed : المصدر كتاب
Bruce Hood : المؤلف
ترجمة ماهر رزوق
January 16, 2022
Good book on science of why we want ownership,it shows why it is human specific desire to own, how wanting ownership started, impact of ownership on happiness,how cultural variation is there in terms of ownership, how possession are extension of self, and show clear, consistent negative association between a broad array of types of personal well-being and people’s belief in and prioritization of materialistic pursuits in life’
Paragraphs which are interesting
A woman needed to marry in order to be socially accepted. An unmarried woman was regarded with suspicion and generally ostracized. It is ironic, then, that in marriage a woman lost her ownership rights to property or even the right to speak for herself in a court of law. Any property she brought to the marriage came under her husband’s control. Any major decisions beyond the day-to-day running of the household required the permission of her husband. Only by the end of the nineteenth century did this situation change significantly with the gradual introduction of the Married Women’s Property Act in the UK between 1870 and 1893. Certain aspects of coverture survived as late as the 1960s in some US states, and in the UK it was not until 1980 that a married woman could apply for a mortgage in her own name. Even the country’s first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was not entitled to take out a mortgage when she came into power in 1979. Today, there are still many societies that discriminate against women. According to a 2016 World Bank report, thirty nations still designate men as head of the household, while women in nineteen countries are legally obliged to obey their husbands.
From the parent’s perspective, there is an expectation of exclusive access to their child, just like property. Parents rarely talk about owning their children, but testimony col
We have established what makes humans unique when it comes to our relationship with possessions. Many animals fight over possessions, but humans evolved the concept of ownership as a way to establish control in our absence and to signal who we are. Like art, concepts are generated in the mind, but ownership, because it is a socially agreed convention, requires learning the rules. While the rules of ownership may be opaque, the need to possess is appreciated from an early age. Infants protest when someone tries to take their stuff away, but this is just a simple reaction to being dispossessed. Ownership is more to do with personal identity and not breaking the rules.
that ownership represents an extension of our self-concept. If this is true, then our sense of self will differ depending on the social contexts we grow up in. What we can call ours depends on the mutually recognized conventions of ownership that we share with others. These rules are not cast in stone but change over time and between cultures.
When there is a property dispute, establishing ownership comes down to making a choice as to who has the strongest claim. But the strength of a claim depends on what a society values the most. In Western societies, with our emphasis on the individual, the bias is for those who can exercise the most control, either through first possession or exclusive access
The rich man glories in his riches, because he feels that they naturally draw upon him the attention of the world … The poor man, on the contrary, is ashamed of his poverty. He feels that it either places him out of the sight of mankind, or, that if they take any notice of him, they have, however, scarce any fellow-feeling with the misery and distress which he suffers.’
Adam Smith
If money can’t buy happiness, then maybe it’s because it is being spent on the wrong things. There is now a substantial body of research that indicates people gain greater satisfaction from spending money on experiences rather than possessions – the difference between ‘being’ versus ‘having’. Psychologist Tom Gilovich has shown that the benefits that people derive from experiential consumption such as holidays, concerts and meals out tend to last longer than the consumption of material possessions such as luxury items of clothing, jewellery and electronic gadgets.58 That satisfaction holds from both the anticipation of the experience as well as upon reflection.
Aristotle, always one to argue with his mentor, was a little more grounded, and emphasized the importance of studying the material world. He thought private ownership promoted prudence and responsibility but noted how we tend to envy and be jealous of others because of ownership. Two thousand years later, the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre maintained that the only reason we want to own is to enhance our sense of self, and the only way we can know who we are is to observe what we have – almost as if we need to externalize our self through our possessions. Our acquisitions are tangible markers of our success.
First, the infant distinguishes self from the environment. Second, the child distinguishes self from others. Third, possessions help adolescents and adults manage their identities, and finally, possessions help the old achieve a sense of continuity and preparation for death. As we age, we shift in our valuation more to those possessions that remind us of our relationships over the years such as mementoes, heirlooms and photographs – the sorts of things that people often say they would save from a burning house. Sometimes this is literally true.
Wanting is different from needing because it is more to do with the psychological fulfilment we seek through what we can own. But it is what we could lose that seems to be the dominant force in our decision-making. And when it comes to the things we own, then this loss is all the more potent for possessions that say something about us.
Everything we own is registered in the brain as ‘ours’ as opposed to someone else’s, but whereas most individuals can readily update, replace, renew or discard their extended material identity, the hoarder cannot let go for fear of self-loss. They may rationalize their actions as prudent foresight but, on balance, the price they pay in terms of mental and physical health – as well as the cost to relationships – simply does not add up.
Paragraphs which are interesting
A woman needed to marry in order to be socially accepted. An unmarried woman was regarded with suspicion and generally ostracized. It is ironic, then, that in marriage a woman lost her ownership rights to property or even the right to speak for herself in a court of law. Any property she brought to the marriage came under her husband’s control. Any major decisions beyond the day-to-day running of the household required the permission of her husband. Only by the end of the nineteenth century did this situation change significantly with the gradual introduction of the Married Women’s Property Act in the UK between 1870 and 1893. Certain aspects of coverture survived as late as the 1960s in some US states, and in the UK it was not until 1980 that a married woman could apply for a mortgage in her own name. Even the country’s first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was not entitled to take out a mortgage when she came into power in 1979. Today, there are still many societies that discriminate against women. According to a 2016 World Bank report, thirty nations still designate men as head of the household, while women in nineteen countries are legally obliged to obey their husbands.
From the parent’s perspective, there is an expectation of exclusive access to their child, just like property. Parents rarely talk about owning their children, but testimony col
We have established what makes humans unique when it comes to our relationship with possessions. Many animals fight over possessions, but humans evolved the concept of ownership as a way to establish control in our absence and to signal who we are. Like art, concepts are generated in the mind, but ownership, because it is a socially agreed convention, requires learning the rules. While the rules of ownership may be opaque, the need to possess is appreciated from an early age. Infants protest when someone tries to take their stuff away, but this is just a simple reaction to being dispossessed. Ownership is more to do with personal identity and not breaking the rules.
that ownership represents an extension of our self-concept. If this is true, then our sense of self will differ depending on the social contexts we grow up in. What we can call ours depends on the mutually recognized conventions of ownership that we share with others. These rules are not cast in stone but change over time and between cultures.
When there is a property dispute, establishing ownership comes down to making a choice as to who has the strongest claim. But the strength of a claim depends on what a society values the most. In Western societies, with our emphasis on the individual, the bias is for those who can exercise the most control, either through first possession or exclusive access
The rich man glories in his riches, because he feels that they naturally draw upon him the attention of the world … The poor man, on the contrary, is ashamed of his poverty. He feels that it either places him out of the sight of mankind, or, that if they take any notice of him, they have, however, scarce any fellow-feeling with the misery and distress which he suffers.’
Adam Smith
If money can’t buy happiness, then maybe it’s because it is being spent on the wrong things. There is now a substantial body of research that indicates people gain greater satisfaction from spending money on experiences rather than possessions – the difference between ‘being’ versus ‘having’. Psychologist Tom Gilovich has shown that the benefits that people derive from experiential consumption such as holidays, concerts and meals out tend to last longer than the consumption of material possessions such as luxury items of clothing, jewellery and electronic gadgets.58 That satisfaction holds from both the anticipation of the experience as well as upon reflection.
Aristotle, always one to argue with his mentor, was a little more grounded, and emphasized the importance of studying the material world. He thought private ownership promoted prudence and responsibility but noted how we tend to envy and be jealous of others because of ownership. Two thousand years later, the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre maintained that the only reason we want to own is to enhance our sense of self, and the only way we can know who we are is to observe what we have – almost as if we need to externalize our self through our possessions. Our acquisitions are tangible markers of our success.
First, the infant distinguishes self from the environment. Second, the child distinguishes self from others. Third, possessions help adolescents and adults manage their identities, and finally, possessions help the old achieve a sense of continuity and preparation for death. As we age, we shift in our valuation more to those possessions that remind us of our relationships over the years such as mementoes, heirlooms and photographs – the sorts of things that people often say they would save from a burning house. Sometimes this is literally true.
Wanting is different from needing because it is more to do with the psychological fulfilment we seek through what we can own. But it is what we could lose that seems to be the dominant force in our decision-making. And when it comes to the things we own, then this loss is all the more potent for possessions that say something about us.
Everything we own is registered in the brain as ‘ours’ as opposed to someone else’s, but whereas most individuals can readily update, replace, renew or discard their extended material identity, the hoarder cannot let go for fear of self-loss. They may rationalize their actions as prudent foresight but, on balance, the price they pay in terms of mental and physical health – as well as the cost to relationships – simply does not add up.
December 16, 2020
Possessed von Dingen.
Warum haben finanziell schlecht gestellte Menschen das Bedürfnis Unmengen an Geld für ein teures Luxusgut auszugeben, wenn sie sich kaum über Wasser halten können?
Und warum machen wohlhabende Menschen häufig das Gegenteil und behalten sich bedeckt mit Luxusgütern?
Das eine ist ein Geltungsbedürfnis innerhalb der Peer-Group und das andere der Fluch des Reichtums.
Der Homo Ökonomicus ist der Inbegriff für "haben-wollen". Wenn es um Besitztümer geht, ist der Mensch irrational. Auch Kahnemann hatte es erkannt und hat ein paar interessante psychologische Effekte erforscht. Vom Easterlin Paradox bis zum Endowment Effekt.
Ein interessanter Einblick in die Unterschiede von individualistischen und kollektiven Gemeinschaften!
Warum haben finanziell schlecht gestellte Menschen das Bedürfnis Unmengen an Geld für ein teures Luxusgut auszugeben, wenn sie sich kaum über Wasser halten können?
Und warum machen wohlhabende Menschen häufig das Gegenteil und behalten sich bedeckt mit Luxusgütern?
Das eine ist ein Geltungsbedürfnis innerhalb der Peer-Group und das andere der Fluch des Reichtums.
Der Homo Ökonomicus ist der Inbegriff für "haben-wollen". Wenn es um Besitztümer geht, ist der Mensch irrational. Auch Kahnemann hatte es erkannt und hat ein paar interessante psychologische Effekte erforscht. Vom Easterlin Paradox bis zum Endowment Effekt.
Ein interessanter Einblick in die Unterschiede von individualistischen und kollektiven Gemeinschaften!
January 12, 2021
Deceptive Title ........
March 6, 2020
Another governmental bureaucrat who is not content with what he gets from your tax money. So repent sinful humanity! Consume less, and pay more taxes so Hood could buy a bigger house!
December 26, 2020
Another one of those books that seems to have an interesting title and relevant topic but end up being a summary of random ideas and research about possession and in fact, could be summarized in 10 pages. Quite a disappointment!
April 13, 2022
most of us think the world is going to hell in a handcart in a phenomenon known as declinism
adage that bad news is more newsworthy than optimism
it is more prudent to address behaviours that we know are creating environmental problems now rather than put faith in future solutions
Contrary to intuition and common wisdom, however, you do not necessarily own your body. If you did, then you would be perfectly entitled to do with it as you wish. But this depends on where you live. Take tattooing, for example. It is illegal and restricted in many countries. When I was a Harvard professor in the 1990s, tattooing was still illegal in Massachusetts and considered a ‘crime against the person’.
it is currently illegal to sell one of your kidneys in the US and the UK, but it’s perfectly legal to do so in Australia and Singapore where live organ donors can profit from the sale of their organs.
Destruction of property is still part of the modern definition of ownership in many jurisdictions. if an art collector wants to play darts with his Rembrandt portrait, no one should stop him because of jus abutendi rights.
What she did not know was that his body had already been plundered by an unscrupulous biomedical tissue company who paid the funeral home to retrieve the celebrated broadcaster’s leg bones. These were worth $7,000 on the human tissue market. This is all perfectly legal and necessary for biomedical procedures. Harvesting body parts is worth over $1 billion annually in the US, even though not one cent goes back to the families of the deceased.
rather than defaulting to finders keepers, people used a wide variety of criteria to make their decisions, which often conflicted with the actual ruling of the courts. Some people thought that if a landowner does not know about an object then the finder is entitled to it, whereas others thought that landowners owned every object on their land even if they did not know it was there. Then there were distinctions between finding objects in public versus private spaces, underneath or on top of the ground, and whether an item was originally lost or mislaid.
In 1626, Dutch explorer Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Delaware tribe of the Lenape people for around $24 worth of goods. There is no bill of sale signed by the various parties, other than a brief mention in a letter to the Dutch West India company that simply states: ‘They have purchased the Island of Manhattes from the savages for the value of 60 guilders.’
it is illegal to own a hedgehog in New York City
In some US states you cannot resell concert tickets above the face value even though you own the ticket. The resale of medical prescriptions is prohibited, even for innocent items such as spectacles or contact lenses, because it is considered in the same category as drug dealing. You never really own software for your computer but rather just license it
The situation gets even more complex when you cross the border of another country; there is a whole legal area known as ‘Conflict of Laws’ which attempts to resolve differing legal systems.
What can be owned has also changed over time. Take the now-abhorrent notion of owning another person. Until fairly recently in history, in many countries, people could be legally owned as slaves.
It must have been an incredible sight when, at noon on 16 September 1893, 100,000 homesteaders rushed forward with their horses and wagons to stake their claims (by driving stakes into the ground) for the best spots on 6 million acres of former Cherokee grazing land in the state of Oklahoma.
the threat of punishment and grinding poverty leaves labourers with no option but to keep working in sweatshops
Up until the nineteenth century, marriages were exercises in ownership rights as wives were considered the property of their husbands, described in English common law by the term ‘coverture’.
Contrary to romantic Western views, love and marriage do not go together like a horse and carriage, or at least, that was never the intention. As the historian Stephanie Coontz points out, until the late eighteenth century, marriage was regarded as far too vital an economic and political issue to be left to the free choices of the individuals involved, let alone to be based on something so transitory or ephemeral as love. the primary directive was the stability and transfer of wealth, not happiness ever after.
In fact, their display of generosity was also a legacy from the old dowry system. Today, many people still adhere to the tradition that the bride’s family hosts and pays for the wedding.
Only by the end of the nineteenth century did this situation change significantly with the gradual introduction of the Married Women’s Property Act in the UK between 1870 and 1893. Certain aspects of coverture survived as late as the 1960s in some US states, and in the UK it was not until 1980 that a married woman could apply for a mortgage in her own name. Even the country’s first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was not entitled to take out a mortgage when she came into power in 1979.
all this is changing as digital communications make it easier to find and change partners, as evidenced by the popularity of dating apps among the ‘Tinderella’ generation.
Then there are the various combinations of multiple wives (polygamy), multiple husbands (polyandry) and the recent trend for multiple lovers out of wedlock (polyamory).
In the past, divorce was so difficult and complicated that it was rarely enacted.21 Moreover, the husband stood to gain everything.
Compare that to the 107,000 divorces in England in 2016 alone, which represents a rate of around four out of every ten marriages. By contrast India, with its predominant system of arranged marriages, has a divorce rate of only 1 in 100.
across the world, children all start off as the responsibility of their parents. This is a form of ownership in that parents have control over their children.
Legally, however, parents in most Western countries do not own their children, and have not since the nineteenth century. Rather, parents are guardians who are expected to look after the best interests of the child
It is a little-known fact that this parental ownership works both ways: adult children are legally obliged to look after their elderly parents if they become dependent on others. In 2012, a Pennsylvanian nursing home successfully sued a son for $92,000 to pay for his mother’s care and the number of similar cases is on the increase.
Our reliance on children is likely to become more pronounced with the so-called demographic time bomb in countries that have falling birth rates. As the population ages, the elderly become increasingly dependent on the young to look after them. An ageing population means higher costs for government, a shortfall in pensions, reduced social-security funds, a shortage of people to care for the very aged, a shortage of young workers and, ultimately, a slow-down in the economy. This recession produces a spiralling cycle of decline, and as the economy shrinks people have fewer children, thereby exacerbating the problem further.
suicide terrorism is often associated with individuals who feel dispossessed because their lands have been illegally taken. In his analysis of over 188 suicide attacks between 1980 and 2001 around the world, from Sri Lanka to the Middle East, Robert Pape, an American political scientist, concluded that the dominant purpose for these actions was to coerce foreign governments to withdraw from occupying territories that the terrorists regarded as homelands they owned.
He might not be statesman-like, but Trump is a self-professed man of the people. His resemblance to the Italian dictator Mussolini, another famous populist, is more than just physical.
The explanation comes down to fear. Most people aren’t authoritarian, but they can easily become so. One reason is uncertainty for the future, which makes people more inclined towards the obedience and authority appeal of the far right. However, when we feel we are under threat or perceive that our moral values are being eroded, we shut down our openness and prefer individuals with power. Those who sit on the fence when it comes to politics are easily pushed over to the right when they are frightened.
In times of uncertainty, we seek reassurance from leaders who articulate a strong, resolute vision to compensate for our own weakness. This partly explains the support for individuals like Trump. ‘Often mistaken but never in doubt’ is considered a virtue in such climates.
Following the end of the Second World War, industrialized countries, especially the US, experienced a sustained economic boom that lasted from 1945 to the recession in the early 1970s, a period commonly known as the Golden Age of Capitalism. When Trump talks about ‘making America great again’, he is referring to this period of prosperity.
the tendency to view the past more favourably through rose-tinted nostalgia and fear for the future – is also more prevalent in older generations. As the witty columnist Franklin P. Addams noted, ‘Nothing is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.
Truck drivers employed at a mine did not feel ownership over the trucks they operated until a new company policy was implemented that assigned each driver to a particular truck. Prior to that, the drivers had not looked after the trucks they drove. After the trucks were allocated, however, they gradually began to refer to their truck as ‘my’ truck, to clean its interior and to attend to mechanical maintenance.
The same is true for the majority of properties bought on mortgages: we do not legally own them until we have settled the debt but still regard such houses as ‘ours’.
To take possession comes from the Latin, possidere, which literally means ‘to sit or put one’s weight or foot over’. When dogs place their paw on humans, we usually interpret it as a sign of affection, but it is actually a mark of dominance. Their wolf genes are still showing the signs of the hierarchy of the pack.
adage that bad news is more newsworthy than optimism
it is more prudent to address behaviours that we know are creating environmental problems now rather than put faith in future solutions
Contrary to intuition and common wisdom, however, you do not necessarily own your body. If you did, then you would be perfectly entitled to do with it as you wish. But this depends on where you live. Take tattooing, for example. It is illegal and restricted in many countries. When I was a Harvard professor in the 1990s, tattooing was still illegal in Massachusetts and considered a ‘crime against the person’.
it is currently illegal to sell one of your kidneys in the US and the UK, but it’s perfectly legal to do so in Australia and Singapore where live organ donors can profit from the sale of their organs.
Destruction of property is still part of the modern definition of ownership in many jurisdictions. if an art collector wants to play darts with his Rembrandt portrait, no one should stop him because of jus abutendi rights.
What she did not know was that his body had already been plundered by an unscrupulous biomedical tissue company who paid the funeral home to retrieve the celebrated broadcaster’s leg bones. These were worth $7,000 on the human tissue market. This is all perfectly legal and necessary for biomedical procedures. Harvesting body parts is worth over $1 billion annually in the US, even though not one cent goes back to the families of the deceased.
rather than defaulting to finders keepers, people used a wide variety of criteria to make their decisions, which often conflicted with the actual ruling of the courts. Some people thought that if a landowner does not know about an object then the finder is entitled to it, whereas others thought that landowners owned every object on their land even if they did not know it was there. Then there were distinctions between finding objects in public versus private spaces, underneath or on top of the ground, and whether an item was originally lost or mislaid.
In 1626, Dutch explorer Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Delaware tribe of the Lenape people for around $24 worth of goods. There is no bill of sale signed by the various parties, other than a brief mention in a letter to the Dutch West India company that simply states: ‘They have purchased the Island of Manhattes from the savages for the value of 60 guilders.’
it is illegal to own a hedgehog in New York City
In some US states you cannot resell concert tickets above the face value even though you own the ticket. The resale of medical prescriptions is prohibited, even for innocent items such as spectacles or contact lenses, because it is considered in the same category as drug dealing. You never really own software for your computer but rather just license it
The situation gets even more complex when you cross the border of another country; there is a whole legal area known as ‘Conflict of Laws’ which attempts to resolve differing legal systems.
What can be owned has also changed over time. Take the now-abhorrent notion of owning another person. Until fairly recently in history, in many countries, people could be legally owned as slaves.
It must have been an incredible sight when, at noon on 16 September 1893, 100,000 homesteaders rushed forward with their horses and wagons to stake their claims (by driving stakes into the ground) for the best spots on 6 million acres of former Cherokee grazing land in the state of Oklahoma.
the threat of punishment and grinding poverty leaves labourers with no option but to keep working in sweatshops
Up until the nineteenth century, marriages were exercises in ownership rights as wives were considered the property of their husbands, described in English common law by the term ‘coverture’.
Contrary to romantic Western views, love and marriage do not go together like a horse and carriage, or at least, that was never the intention. As the historian Stephanie Coontz points out, until the late eighteenth century, marriage was regarded as far too vital an economic and political issue to be left to the free choices of the individuals involved, let alone to be based on something so transitory or ephemeral as love. the primary directive was the stability and transfer of wealth, not happiness ever after.
In fact, their display of generosity was also a legacy from the old dowry system. Today, many people still adhere to the tradition that the bride’s family hosts and pays for the wedding.
Only by the end of the nineteenth century did this situation change significantly with the gradual introduction of the Married Women’s Property Act in the UK between 1870 and 1893. Certain aspects of coverture survived as late as the 1960s in some US states, and in the UK it was not until 1980 that a married woman could apply for a mortgage in her own name. Even the country’s first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was not entitled to take out a mortgage when she came into power in 1979.
all this is changing as digital communications make it easier to find and change partners, as evidenced by the popularity of dating apps among the ‘Tinderella’ generation.
Then there are the various combinations of multiple wives (polygamy), multiple husbands (polyandry) and the recent trend for multiple lovers out of wedlock (polyamory).
In the past, divorce was so difficult and complicated that it was rarely enacted.21 Moreover, the husband stood to gain everything.
Compare that to the 107,000 divorces in England in 2016 alone, which represents a rate of around four out of every ten marriages. By contrast India, with its predominant system of arranged marriages, has a divorce rate of only 1 in 100.
across the world, children all start off as the responsibility of their parents. This is a form of ownership in that parents have control over their children.
Legally, however, parents in most Western countries do not own their children, and have not since the nineteenth century. Rather, parents are guardians who are expected to look after the best interests of the child
It is a little-known fact that this parental ownership works both ways: adult children are legally obliged to look after their elderly parents if they become dependent on others. In 2012, a Pennsylvanian nursing home successfully sued a son for $92,000 to pay for his mother’s care and the number of similar cases is on the increase.
Our reliance on children is likely to become more pronounced with the so-called demographic time bomb in countries that have falling birth rates. As the population ages, the elderly become increasingly dependent on the young to look after them. An ageing population means higher costs for government, a shortfall in pensions, reduced social-security funds, a shortage of people to care for the very aged, a shortage of young workers and, ultimately, a slow-down in the economy. This recession produces a spiralling cycle of decline, and as the economy shrinks people have fewer children, thereby exacerbating the problem further.
suicide terrorism is often associated with individuals who feel dispossessed because their lands have been illegally taken. In his analysis of over 188 suicide attacks between 1980 and 2001 around the world, from Sri Lanka to the Middle East, Robert Pape, an American political scientist, concluded that the dominant purpose for these actions was to coerce foreign governments to withdraw from occupying territories that the terrorists regarded as homelands they owned.
He might not be statesman-like, but Trump is a self-professed man of the people. His resemblance to the Italian dictator Mussolini, another famous populist, is more than just physical.
The explanation comes down to fear. Most people aren’t authoritarian, but they can easily become so. One reason is uncertainty for the future, which makes people more inclined towards the obedience and authority appeal of the far right. However, when we feel we are under threat or perceive that our moral values are being eroded, we shut down our openness and prefer individuals with power. Those who sit on the fence when it comes to politics are easily pushed over to the right when they are frightened.
In times of uncertainty, we seek reassurance from leaders who articulate a strong, resolute vision to compensate for our own weakness. This partly explains the support for individuals like Trump. ‘Often mistaken but never in doubt’ is considered a virtue in such climates.
Following the end of the Second World War, industrialized countries, especially the US, experienced a sustained economic boom that lasted from 1945 to the recession in the early 1970s, a period commonly known as the Golden Age of Capitalism. When Trump talks about ‘making America great again’, he is referring to this period of prosperity.
the tendency to view the past more favourably through rose-tinted nostalgia and fear for the future – is also more prevalent in older generations. As the witty columnist Franklin P. Addams noted, ‘Nothing is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.
Truck drivers employed at a mine did not feel ownership over the trucks they operated until a new company policy was implemented that assigned each driver to a particular truck. Prior to that, the drivers had not looked after the trucks they drove. After the trucks were allocated, however, they gradually began to refer to their truck as ‘my’ truck, to clean its interior and to attend to mechanical maintenance.
The same is true for the majority of properties bought on mortgages: we do not legally own them until we have settled the debt but still regard such houses as ‘ours’.
To take possession comes from the Latin, possidere, which literally means ‘to sit or put one’s weight or foot over’. When dogs place their paw on humans, we usually interpret it as a sign of affection, but it is actually a mark of dominance. Their wolf genes are still showing the signs of the hierarchy of the pack.
May 10, 2024
Fantastic book if you’re interested in anything regarding the concept of ownership. This book covers the legal aspect of ownership, including absurd and interesting anecdotes of how context specific and man-made this idea is, and that it is absent in other animals.
It also goes over the evolutionary psychology and origins of the idea of ownership. How culture went from shunning goods and reserving them for the rich, to a mass consumer market after the Industrial Revolution.
The most interesting part of the book was regarding materialism and happiness. Humans have many cognitive distortions that make us feel constantly like we don’t have enough, including the gradual acclimation of our neurons to the surroundings, making us feel bored of whatever we have and craving novelty. However, even despite the rise in income after WW2, happiness has not significantly increased in accordance, proving that materialism does not cause a permanent state of happiness. Humans tend to have cognitive biases, which the author takes from Thinking Fast and Slow, which make us overweight losses, compare ourselves with others with more, and ultimately feel like we don’t have enough, no matter how much we acquire. He has a memorable quote to the point of “psychologically speaking we will always be in the silver medal position of our lives.”
The book covers a bit more, about differences in culture and collectivism, how other animals behave, how hunter gatherers viewed ownership, etc. It does have a lot of information and it’s not always completely cohesive in forming one narrative, but overall is a comprehensive and interesting read.
It also goes over the evolutionary psychology and origins of the idea of ownership. How culture went from shunning goods and reserving them for the rich, to a mass consumer market after the Industrial Revolution.
The most interesting part of the book was regarding materialism and happiness. Humans have many cognitive distortions that make us feel constantly like we don’t have enough, including the gradual acclimation of our neurons to the surroundings, making us feel bored of whatever we have and craving novelty. However, even despite the rise in income after WW2, happiness has not significantly increased in accordance, proving that materialism does not cause a permanent state of happiness. Humans tend to have cognitive biases, which the author takes from Thinking Fast and Slow, which make us overweight losses, compare ourselves with others with more, and ultimately feel like we don’t have enough, no matter how much we acquire. He has a memorable quote to the point of “psychologically speaking we will always be in the silver medal position of our lives.”
The book covers a bit more, about differences in culture and collectivism, how other animals behave, how hunter gatherers viewed ownership, etc. It does have a lot of information and it’s not always completely cohesive in forming one narrative, but overall is a comprehensive and interesting read.
September 24, 2020
In “Possessed”, Bruce Hood effortlessly traverses myriad riveting topics, relating pretty much every aspect of human life and culture to the concept of ownership. The concise volume retains incredible focus, neatly tying every rumination back to the core theme of the book, and putting forth various compelling theses. The author cleverly moves through humanity’s now frowned-upon societal norms of owning slaves and husbands owning wives, along with the equally bizarre illusion of land ownership, to establish how the phenomenon of “owning something” is nothing other than a concept invented by human society. This is one of the striking messages of this book, and for me, it spearheads various eye-opening aspects of ownership across cultures to makes it absolutely essential reading. The only time the author really injects his personal opinion is in the prologue and epilogue, where he briefly comments on the ever widening inequality gap, and the importance of understanding our drive for ownership with regards to establishing a hospitable earth. He’s incontrovertibly right, as a species, we really do need to curb our apparent need to own things for the sake of environmental impact. This is well structured, highly readable, and enlightening writing – what more can you ask for? Read it as soon as you can.
January 25, 2022
JE TO DOKÁZANÉ: MAJETOK NÁS NEROBÍ ŠŤASTNEJŠÍMI. Keď uspokojíme svoje základné potreby bezpečia, výživy a zdravia, každý ďalší majetok nás len psychicky zaťažuje, stresuje, odpútava od vzťahov a znižuje náš psychický komfort. Je ľahké odsudzovať ľudí šialených novoročnými výpredajmi, ale... čo je za tým? Čo nás núti kupovať stále viac, hoci už všetko máme a to trojmo?
V knihe Possessed, ktorá sa dá preložiť ako "vlastnení" ale aj ako "posadnutí" sa Bruce Hood zamýšľa nad tým, ktoré naše inštinkty či návyky vďaka konzumnej ekonomike ničia naše životy, spoločnosť, aj prírodu na celej planéte. Prečo sa teda obklopujeme materiálnymi statkami, keď stará aj nová múdrosť sveta učí, že hromadenie majetku prináša nešťastie? Učí nás o tom Starý aj Nový zákon, slovenská ľudová slovesnosť (O dvanástich mesiačikoch, Kráľ času), orientálne rozprávky (Alibaba a 40 zbojníkov), ale aj mnoho moderných príbehov (za všetky spomeňme Dickensa a jeho Vianočnú koledu, pri ktorej sme mnohí slzili cez sviatky).
Hromadíme majetok, aby sme sa predvádzali. Súťažíme o prestíž medzi susedmi či kamarátmi. Neporovnávame sa s Billom Gatesom, ale so spolužiakom zo strednej. Aké má auto? Aké hodinky. Výskumy ukazujú, že čím sú ľudia z chudobnejších pomerov, tým viac majú potrebu kupovať zbytočnosti len kvôli zdanlivému pocitu luxusu. A neváhajú sa kvôli tomu zadlžiť.
Ďalšou zaujímavou myšlienkou dokázanou v knihe je, že slávny homo economicus, teda výmysel klasickej liberálnej ekonómie, človek, ktorý racionálne vyberá na trhu pre seba to najlepšie, nikdy v praxi neexistoval. V nakupovaní a narábaní s peniazmi sa ľudia nesprávajú racionálne. Na tomto poznaní, umne maskovanom, vyrástlo celé odvetvie reklamy. Veď kto už by si kupoval auto kvôli dobrým brzdám? Kupujeme predsa pocit slobody, status, názor, chuť byť sám sebou (pozrite, aké ďalšie sprostosti hovoria reklamy na autá...) Druhou, tou lepšou stránkou našej iracionálnosti je darcovstvo a altruizmus. Darujeme síce tiež preto, aby sme vyzerali pekne, ale motívy sú komplikovanejšie a je v nich veľa pocitov. Z kúpenia kávy bezdomovkyni naozaj nemám žiadny prospech zvlášť, keď mi podľa očakávania ani nepoďakuje...
A navyše, keď už máme všetkého priveľa, majetku, aj toho zbytočného a bezcenného vo forme harabúrd, sa nevieme zbaviť. Keď už raz niečo máme, myslíme si, že to má väčšiu hodnotu, než to v skutočnosti stojí.
Takže nepanikárme. Je normálne, že chceme nakupovať, je normálne, že sa ťažko lúčime s dvadsaťročnou nenosenou bundou, je normálne, že sa necháme zvábiť reklamou a kúpime sprostosť. To ale neznamená, že máme na rozum rezignovať. Lebo, ako hovorí Hood: "Čo naozaj potrebujeme nie je viac vecí, ale viac času na to, aby sme si užili to, čo už máme."
V knihe Possessed, ktorá sa dá preložiť ako "vlastnení" ale aj ako "posadnutí" sa Bruce Hood zamýšľa nad tým, ktoré naše inštinkty či návyky vďaka konzumnej ekonomike ničia naše životy, spoločnosť, aj prírodu na celej planéte. Prečo sa teda obklopujeme materiálnymi statkami, keď stará aj nová múdrosť sveta učí, že hromadenie majetku prináša nešťastie? Učí nás o tom Starý aj Nový zákon, slovenská ľudová slovesnosť (O dvanástich mesiačikoch, Kráľ času), orientálne rozprávky (Alibaba a 40 zbojníkov), ale aj mnoho moderných príbehov (za všetky spomeňme Dickensa a jeho Vianočnú koledu, pri ktorej sme mnohí slzili cez sviatky).
Hromadíme majetok, aby sme sa predvádzali. Súťažíme o prestíž medzi susedmi či kamarátmi. Neporovnávame sa s Billom Gatesom, ale so spolužiakom zo strednej. Aké má auto? Aké hodinky. Výskumy ukazujú, že čím sú ľudia z chudobnejších pomerov, tým viac majú potrebu kupovať zbytočnosti len kvôli zdanlivému pocitu luxusu. A neváhajú sa kvôli tomu zadlžiť.
Ďalšou zaujímavou myšlienkou dokázanou v knihe je, že slávny homo economicus, teda výmysel klasickej liberálnej ekonómie, človek, ktorý racionálne vyberá na trhu pre seba to najlepšie, nikdy v praxi neexistoval. V nakupovaní a narábaní s peniazmi sa ľudia nesprávajú racionálne. Na tomto poznaní, umne maskovanom, vyrástlo celé odvetvie reklamy. Veď kto už by si kupoval auto kvôli dobrým brzdám? Kupujeme predsa pocit slobody, status, názor, chuť byť sám sebou (pozrite, aké ďalšie sprostosti hovoria reklamy na autá...) Druhou, tou lepšou stránkou našej iracionálnosti je darcovstvo a altruizmus. Darujeme síce tiež preto, aby sme vyzerali pekne, ale motívy sú komplikovanejšie a je v nich veľa pocitov. Z kúpenia kávy bezdomovkyni naozaj nemám žiadny prospech zvlášť, keď mi podľa očakávania ani nepoďakuje...
A navyše, keď už máme všetkého priveľa, majetku, aj toho zbytočného a bezcenného vo forme harabúrd, sa nevieme zbaviť. Keď už raz niečo máme, myslíme si, že to má väčšiu hodnotu, než to v skutočnosti stojí.
Takže nepanikárme. Je normálne, že chceme nakupovať, je normálne, že sa ťažko lúčime s dvadsaťročnou nenosenou bundou, je normálne, že sa necháme zvábiť reklamou a kúpime sprostosť. To ale neznamená, že máme na rozum rezignovať. Lebo, ako hovorí Hood: "Čo naozaj potrebujeme nie je viac vecí, ale viac času na to, aby sme si užili to, čo už máme."
November 7, 2019
There are certainly some gems of clarity I found here. But coming of the Self Illusion by the same author, I found some duplication of persuasions.
Humans possess and that is the lot in life. Weather its for tangible or experiential products, that is how we make sense of how we are, attract others and signal our attributes. I'm certainly interested if Mr Hood would have explored more of understanding how and if the WEIRD studies are not providing more valuable insights. He could have dealt more into how other cultures and communitarian persuasions would have considered possessions to be more collective rather then individualistic.
However, I did enjoy the book in illuminating my own pursuit of items and how my intuitions on purchases and ownership have been largely anticipatory and non lasting.
Humans possess and that is the lot in life. Weather its for tangible or experiential products, that is how we make sense of how we are, attract others and signal our attributes. I'm certainly interested if Mr Hood would have explored more of understanding how and if the WEIRD studies are not providing more valuable insights. He could have dealt more into how other cultures and communitarian persuasions would have considered possessions to be more collective rather then individualistic.
However, I did enjoy the book in illuminating my own pursuit of items and how my intuitions on purchases and ownership have been largely anticipatory and non lasting.
September 1, 2024
This book has sat on my bookshelf for 5 years 😬 I kept wishing I would pick it up and read it (it was relevant to my studies) but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Partly that was justified, as much of it I won't retain. But overall I very much enjoyed the book. A good mix of the classic studies, but also plenty for new ones. An excellent example of using converging lines of evidence as well as evidence from multiple disciplines.
Need to look into the relevant sources Ch 6 #64&65, Epilogue #7.
The Epilogue has somewhat of a good summary
Need to look into the relevant sources Ch 6 #64&65, Epilogue #7.
The Epilogue has somewhat of a good summary
May 3, 2022
Bruce Hood is professor of Developmental Psychology in Society at Bristol University. This fascinating book examines the psychology of ownership, including distinguishing between legal, moral and psychological possession, links between ownership and personal identity, sharing, the links between wealth and happiness and how to give it away. I came away with a better understanding of why I have so much stuff that I find difficult to give away.
March 17, 2020
Enjoyed digging into our motivations and patterns of owning and possessing stuff........was a good short review but as the author admitted (thought this would be easy-was very difficult) , to differentiate why adding to the peacock’s feathers a pile of gold makes for ‘more happiness’ is problematic ......and unfinished by book’s ending.......
January 2, 2021
Explains why we own things and what drives us to do so which is much deeper than being brought up in a capitalist/consumerist society. While highlighting what many of us know (wealth and stuff doesn't bring happiness) and explaining why we still pursue these things despite knowing this there isn't much to suggest corrective actions we can take.
August 31, 2020
This was a fun psychology book based on strong experiments. I think I wanted something more political.
August 27, 2022
2.5 - some interesting nuggets
December 17, 2022
Very good- I actually just heavily skimmed this book. But the last part and the epilogue were very informative. I am often wondering about our desire to own stuff!
November 30, 2025
3.5 rounded up. Well written, didn't provoke a ton of new thoughts but did make me realize how much I've thought about this stuff already.
August 11, 2024
More than the reality of ownership, this book span across human societal decision making and self image.
February 7, 2020
This book took me by surprise. Very current. Politically it seemed a little off the mark but the human science aspect was very good.
September 14, 2019
Human motives
Really interesting read, strong arguments. Ending with just give up possessions sounded like communism. No solution to the conundrum. Are we all doomed to possession sickness.
Really interesting read, strong arguments. Ending with just give up possessions sounded like communism. No solution to the conundrum. Are we all doomed to possession sickness.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews