• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Catch-22

Catch-22

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 16, 2001
Messages
4,518
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
1. Physiological: hunger, thirst, bodily comforts, etc.;
2. Safety/security: out of danger;
3. Belonginess and Love: affiliate with others, be accepted; and
4. Esteem: to achieve, be competent, gain approval and recognition.
5. Cognitive: to know, to understand, and explore;
6. Aesthetic: symmetry, order, and beauty;
7. Self-actualization: to find self-fulfillment and realize one's potential; and
8. Transcendence: to help others find self-fulfillment and realize their potential.
___
We are supposed to progress down the list, "accomplishing" the first four needs before beginning to undertake the last four items. If at any time a deficiency occurs in the first four needs, we refocus our attention until the situation is resolved. Otherwise, we continue growing....
This sounds nice on the surface, but I just don't buy this explanation for human motivation. Do we ever act with completely altruistic intentions? I say that once the first two needs (survival and safety) are met, we spend all of our time on the third and fourth needs (acceptance and esteem).
I take the position that people who think they are spending lots of time on needs 5-8 have just re-worked needs 3-4 to seem more sophisticated. You might become a doctor not for the money or to be showered with respect from the general public, but human nature says you will still get a feeling of accomplishment when you do something worthwhile. And that is feeding need #4! And remember, you cannot progress to needs 5-8 until fulfilling the first four needs....so I say the whole hierarchy of needs is bullshit.
Don't get me wrong. We should all aspire to help others and try to act non-selfishly. But we are still human beings and we are still subject to human nature. There is no such thing as a purely altruistic act!
[ 18 July 2002: Message edited by: Catch-22 ]
 
"There is no such thing as a purely altruistic act!"
Boringly I agree
"And remember, you cannot progress to needs 5-8 until fulfilling the first four needs....so I say the whole hierarchy of needs is bullshit."
Yes, I agree again
 
Serving others is a way of serving self, and there is no doubt about that; You do good for others and you then--in turn--feel good about yourself.
It sure beats hurting others to get what you want or need for yourself.
:)
[ 18 July 2002: Message edited by: Noodle ]
 
^ yes, 'tis better to give then to receive. when we practice this we understand this.
i say this cause when i was a kid of five or so my parents always told me that. i didnt understand it cause i loved presents.then one day i made my mom something that brought her so much joy and it made me feel so good. much better then any present i had ever got. it didnt take me long to realize that this should apply too all areas of life ,not just in matters of giving gifts, but giving everything. be it love, or money, or time spent with someone. whatever you give, it will somehow always come back and touch you in some way.
 
a) Don't generalise others nature from your own
b) Where did this assumption that humans even have a 'nature' come from? Whats it based on?
And just what the fuck is it?
You're sort of coming from an evolutionary standpoint by the sound of it, or at least one that assumes we all share this common 'nature' thing. I don't agree with that assumption, and I do believe that altruistic sentiments are possible. And if ya don't like that...prove me wrong hehe.
The point I'm making is that your probably speculating whats inside other peoples black box from what you've found inside your own. Of course, by saying that, I'm doing it too :P
Through my spirituality I've got to the point where I have the security to no longer look outwards for validation. Of course its always nice to get praise for doin your thing, but my self esteem isn't strongly correlated with how much praise or criticism I receive. So yeah, I think Maslow was right in putting in the later stages. Thats all I can say though, Maslow's work is valid to me. W
 
"I don't agree with that assumption, and I do believe that altruistic sentiments are possible. And if ya don't like that...prove me wrong hehe. "
Ok rather than making it very back and forth, why don't you just tell us the most altruistic possible act and we can just see if it can be looked at realistically from our perspective of true altruism not being possible.
"Thats all I can say though, Maslow's work is valid to me."
So you can't do 5 or 6 without 3 or 4?
 
There was no trick to me using the phrase human nature.
Dictionary.com:
human nature
n.
The sum of qualities and traits shared by all humans.
And whether you look inwards or outwards, you are still seeking validation. What's the difference?
We can make distinctions on whether people are trying to fulfill needs 3 & 4 in a healthy or unhealthy manner, but when it comes to critiquing Maslow's model....again, what's the difference?
Click to expand...
 
Rather than come to complete resolution/mastery (whatever that is), I think you're supposed to realise that a lacking in one need down the order will affect needs upwards and not the other way around, and, as always, balance is required in all 8 of these needs, not just striving to fulfill particular needs over others.
An excess in attention to need 1 leads to obesity, need 2 to paranoia, need 3 to excessive friendliness, need 4 to workaholism, need 5 to nerdhood, need 6 to obsessive compulsive behaviour, need 7 and 8 seem to have their own inbuilt regulation, in my experience.
 
Points taken!
I still say people are trying to fill the third and fourth needs when they think they are working on needs 5-8. So in that case Maslow's Hierarchy isn't a hierarchy at all. Working on need #7 does not somehow make you more sophisticated or complex than someone who is only working on need #5. Maybe you just have very large needs when it comes to #3 or #4. Maybe the basic "acceptance" and "approval" are not enough.
It would be like if need #4 was "to have a decent career." Perhaps someone else writes down need #5 is to become technically proficient, need #6 is to invent things which make the world a better place, need #7 is to be the best researcher you can be and need #8 is to mentor someone else to be the best researcher he/she can be. Maybe the second person just had a lot more to do in order to meet need #4. Does that make them more highly evolved than the first person?
Does it all come down to just setting ambitious goals? If so, what if the first person decided need #4 was to win a Nobel Prize? And they have a great career and actually "win" that recognition. Meanwhile a much less skillful researcher was busy working on their #5-8 needs and ends up not having anything to show for it (either to others but more importantly to themselves). Now who was the better researcher?
Who was the more advanced person? I see a frustrated person with many unfed needs and someone else who met their need.
[I wrote this pretty quick, but just wanted to ramble about something.]
 
I'm still waiting on somebody to give an example of a purely altruistic act. ;)
 
I'm of the belief that we humans are just selfish creatures who have the ability to think about it.
selfish...of or pertaining to self...not necessarily self-absorbed, but in reality, we all have to be pretty much self absorbed because we're stuck in these here bodies! Humans are selfish, because it is a survival instinct. Promotion of self. Advancement of self. Procreation. Helping others. Destroying others. Appearing good to others. Appearing bad to others.
All these things help to promote an image that the "self" wishes others to see. It is all for "self", primal instinct controls and cognitive
thought justifies, examines, and visualises the self.
We are animals. Animals, with limited, yet effective means to communicate among one another. Animals with the ability to work together intentionally for purpose. But the purpose as a species is for survival.
selfish = survival.
You can tell everyone you're the biggest, baddest dude on the block and get them to fear you. Then you survive.
You can get everyone to like you and want to be around you. Then you survive.
You can seclude yourself away from others in order to avoid conflict and resource sharing. Then you survive.
When we work together, we work for the survival of the species, or a collective group in the species whose reasoning has proclaimed itself worthy of survival over, in spite of, or with others.
All in all it seems really simple, in that humans, have one need. That need is to stay in the race. I wonder what happens after we reach the finish line.
 
I don't agree with that assumption, and I do believe that altruistic sentiments are possible. And if ya don't like that...prove me wrong hehe.
They are possible. Reciprocal altruism is favoured by natural selection. True altruism isn't - but it is possible.
Originally posted by Catch-22:
I'm still waiting on somebody to give an example of a purely altruistic act. ;)
To do something beneficial for someone you don't know (without letting them know), and choosing them at random, and telling no-one about it. A concrete example is therefore impossible. My arguments for this being a truely altruistic act are in the thread "Where does morality come from ?".
My reaction to the original list is that 5 should be mixed up with the first 2, and eventually 3 (of which 6 is involved) all while deveoping 4 in parallel (5 is needed here too), with 7 and 8 working with a large overlap (reciprocal altruism). Actually you need 5 everywhere.
Yuk. It's a terrible serial list but an somewhat interesting parallel one.
 
If you live in a vacuum with no one else around you but these needs change depending on where we are and who we are with
.

For example, every group we belong to from home, work, friends and school we take on specific roles in these groups
We might be the victim in one group, the saviour in another group, all according to the other people and the roles they choose to take on. So I think it figures what needs are met in one group might not be the same in a different group. If you're the saviour at home but the victim at work your needs in each place will have changed according to the needs of others, as they have to be taken into consideration, surely? What do you think.

Babygirl. X
 
Sounds like it should work though doesn't it? If it could it would be a great way to feel superior to everyone else, especially if you happen to be higher up than someone else. I think the need to categorise human behaviour has had a lot of slips lately. In the last 50 years. Look at the conformity experiment that was thought up to work out why during the second world war German people went along with the atrocities commited in their name. And no, this is not a debate about ww2, simply an example of learned people thinking they have all the answers.

Having said that the one thing that experiments like the Milgram experiment was useless as a study in conformity but it did something better, it set the ground rules as to what was acceptable and ethical as opposed to being almost completely useless. Sometimes learned people don't have all of the answers do they?

Babygirl. X
 
Ah heck, Abraham Maslow died in 1970 so is unlikely to issue a rebuttal.

No psychologist worth that title would consider the work of any single psychologist to solve every issue. They are merely tools. As a kid Tranactional Analysis (Eric Berne) was very popular on coffee tables because it appears to offer simple explainations. Then of course we had R.D Laing who was often termed 'the rock star psychiatrist' although I note his work is now not so commonly used while a generation before Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham who introduced the Johari window and I could continue ad nausiem because there was something of an explosion in the sales of popular psychology books in the 60s and 70s.

Applied science nearly always employs heuristics and if the job of a psychologist to help someone suffering using whatever tools work for that specific patient is the way to go.

In fact, Luft and Harrington were the first to make it clear that psychology SHOULD employ heuristics.
 
Last edited:
4DQSAR said:
Ah heck, Abraham Maslow died in 1970 so is unlikely to issue a rebuttal.

No psychologist worth that title would consider the work of any single psychologist to solve every issue. They are merely tools. As a kid Tranactional Analysis (Eric Berne) was very popular on coffee tables because it appears to offer simple explainations. Then of course we had R.D Laing who was often termed 'the rock star psychiatrist' although I note his work is now not so commonly used while a generation before Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham who introduced the Johari window and I could continue ad nausiem because there was something of an explosion in the sales of popular psychology books in the 60s and 70s.

Applied science nearly always employs heuristics and if the job of a psychologist to help someone suffering using whatever tools work for that specific patient.

In fact, Luft and Harrington were the first to make it clear that psychology SHOULD employ heuristics.
Click to expand...
100% agree

It's all just frameworks designed to explore/understand the psyche really, including all (most anyway for sure) of the mental health and Sp.Ld dignoses. Usually merely 'names' which encapsulate a demonstration of a certain group of 'symptoms'. ie "you do this/this/this and think that/that that, therefore you are XXX"

We are merely scratching the surface when it comes to such subjects, there's no doubt whatsoever about that - if anyone who works with you on a mental health/Sp.Ld level thinks differently to that... well, run a mile I'd suggest...also goes for any practitioner who believes that their 'way' is the 'correct/only' one nomatter what.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top