I don't understand why one group of people's actions have to be explained by something to the depth of self fulfillment, which I think is a cop-out anyway because you can argue that for any and every action a person takes. It explains everything without explaining anything. Then someone like a_rec (sorry a_rec) understands that he likes to buy stuff, because it's thrilling. And that's the explanation that's given there? And that's your understanding on this end of it? And this is applauded? I'd like to meet someone here that doesn't like to buy stuff, either because it's thrilling or they have masochistic financial tendencies. That's almost a cop-out at the other extreme. It doesn't explain the underlying mechanism or motivation for such behavior any more than self fulfillment does to any useful level. But I still don't get why different methods and levels of "understanding" being used to describe different "samples". Why one here and why the other there? I think the urge to simplify in an attempt to "explain" more with less undermines understanding at some point and at the individual level. It's almost like an academic vs a practical implementation. Sure you'll hit upon generalities with a large enough sample or general enough reasoning. And don't get me wrong, I don't see anything wrong with that nor am I trying to say what should or shouldn't be discussed here. One of the best things about this thread is the range of conversations. I'm "just" questioning it's application and use here.