Focusing too much on the "what do you want?" question risks oversimplifying complex interactions and reducing the depth of understanding that could emerge from more nuanced deliberation.

The question "What do you want?" is incredibly powerful, but it's also a bit of a shortcut. It focuses attention on desire—on goals, intentions, or immediate needs—rather than the broader, deeper terrain of why someone desires something, how they arrived at that desire, or the context in which that desire exists. When the conversation is narrowed to that question, the richness of mutual understanding can easily be lost.

In situations where both parties share a certain understanding of a topic, asking "what do you want?" without also exploring the why or how can indeed bypass the understanding you both have. It risks pushing the conversation into transactional terms: an exchange of needs rather than a true exploration of meaning, context, and intention.

Here’s what’s potentially underdeveloped or bypassed:

1. Deliberation: In a richer dialogue, deliberation—where different viewpoints are explored, tested, and refined—might not happen if the focus is solely on what one person wants in the moment. Deliberation requires a willingness to engage in a back-and-forth, to refine ideas, test assumptions, and perhaps alter desires in light of new understanding. If the conversation gets stuck in the "what do you want?" loop, this back-and-forth is constrained.

2. Mutual Understanding: True understanding isn’t just about recognizing desires; it’s about getting into the depth of why those desires exist, how they shape the person, and what the implications are for both parties. A desire expressed in isolation—without context—doesn’t fully communicate the inner world of the person, nor does it create the space for mutual understanding. It may only offer a surface-level, transactional exchange.

3. Actions Based on Understanding: When mutual understanding is bypassed, actions might become more about fulfilling immediate desires or negotiating between competing goals. But without the foundation of deep understanding, those actions may lack the subtlety or empathy that can lead to truly collaborative, transformative outcomes.

It’s like a partnership where both people have a shared sense of what’s needed, but if they only talk about the end-goal (the "what"), they miss the opportunity to build something more intricate together—something rooted in why they want it, what obstacles they face, how their goals overlap, and what deeper meaning exists beneath their desires.

So, yes, when the conversation is limited to the "what do you want?" question, a certain kind of understanding is indeed underdeveloped. The real work—the exploration of shared meaning, the testing and evolving of ideas—gets sidetracked in favor of a more superficial negotiation.

ChatGPT said:

You’re right—“giving people what they want” does seem to have become a dominant telos in many aspects of modern life, from consumer culture to political discourse. It’s a driving force in both the market and the ways we think about freedom and agency. But this approach risks oversimplifying what it means to live a fully human life, to understand our desires, or to engage in meaningful, reflective communication.

If we turn to Jürgen Habermas in this context, we can pull out a few of his key ideas that might shed light on why giving people what they want is not the end-all, be-all of human existence—and why it might even be counterproductive in some ways.

1. Communicative Rationality vs. Strategic Action

Habermas differentiates between communicative action (action based on mutual understanding and dialogue) and strategic action (action motivated by self-interest or the pursuit of goals). In the modern world, where “giving people what they want” is often treated as the ultimate goal, we see a tendency to prioritize strategic action—where the focus is on fulfilling immediate desires or manipulating outcomes rather than engaging in dialogue that fosters mutual understanding.

For Habermas, communicative action is where genuine human flourishing can happen, because it allows people to come to mutual, reflective agreements about what is truly important. It’s not just about getting what you want—it’s about critically examining why you want it, what it means for you and others, and how to pursue it in a way that respects the autonomy of all involved. When we’re too focused on satisfying immediate desires, we might bypass the more complex process of arriving at shared understanding, which is key to Habermas’s conception of democracy and social progress.

2. The Colonization of the Lifeworld

Habermas argues that the lifeworld—the realm of personal, cultural, and social understanding—is often “colonized” by systems of power, particularly the market and bureaucracy. When modernity focuses too much on satisfying wants, it often shifts attention away from deeper, more reflective processes of understanding, towards a simplified, transactional model.

In a world where everyone’s wants are catered to without deeper reflection, the lifeworld becomes a passive, commodified space where individuals are reduced to consumers. Instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue about values, needs, and collective goals, individuals simply participate in the process of exchange, driven by external systems (like the market or state) that frame their desires for them. For Habermas, this “colonization” undermines the possibility of true democratic deliberation and the development of a just society.

3. The Role of Deliberative Democracy

Habermas is known for his commitment to deliberative democracy, where political decisions are made through the reasoned exchange of arguments and perspectives. In his view, modern societies can only function healthily if individuals come together to engage in rational deliberation, ensuring that the outcomes reflect the shared will of all citizens, rather than the mere satisfaction of individual desires.

When the focus shifts too heavily toward “giving people what they want,” there’s a risk that the public sphere is reduced to a space of mere consumption and personal satisfaction, rather than thoughtful, collective engagement with issues that affect everyone. Deliberative democracy, by contrast, is about listening to others, refining your own views in the process, and collectively arriving at decisions that reflect not just individual wants, but the common good.

4. The Ideal Speech Situation

In a world where giving people what they want is the dominant goal, it’s easy to see how inequalities—whether economic, political, or social—might prevent meaningful dialogue. The wealthy might be able to get what they want by shaping the systems around them, while the marginalized or disempowered are left to fight for the scraps. This unequal power dynamic undermines the possibility of true deliberation.

5. Habermas’s Critique of Consumer Culture

Habermas has critiqued consumer culture as promoting instrumental rationality, where people are seen primarily as consumers in the marketplace, rather than as individuals engaged in meaningful, reflective action. In this consumer-driven logic, the ultimate goal becomes the satisfaction of individual wants, often without any deeper consideration of what those wants mean or how they relate to others. This is particularly evident in advertising, which often manufactures desires and shapes public opinion without room for critical engagement.

In Summary:

Habermas would likely argue that focusing too much on “giving people what they want” is reductive. It’s not enough to simply cater to desires; the true challenge of modernity, for Habermas, is how we can create conditions where people can engage in open, rational dialogue, where their desires are considered in the context of broader social values, and where they work together to create a just society. When the telos of modernity is reduced to mere satisfaction of individual wants, we risk undermining the very communicative processes that make human life meaningful and democratic society possible.

So, giving people what they want might be appealing in a consumerist sense, but Habermas would remind us that it misses the deeper purpose of human interaction: the possibility of mutual understanding, deliberation, and the creation of a society that genuinely reflects the needs and desires of all its members, not just those who have the power to fulfill their own.