Maslow Hierarchy of needs

[ygolo]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How strong is the hierarchy part?

In particular, it is claimed:

The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus once all the lower needs in the pyramid are satisfied.

So, for instance, does that mean my sense of belonging needs have to be taken care of before my esteem needs and others?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I suppose it depends on how much merit you think Maslow's hierarchy has. I think it definitely gives a person good food for thought, but I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions.

 

[Usehername]

I think that's based off HIS needs. Sure, all of those things are great, but as an INTJ, the order is a little skewed for me.

 

[Maverick]

It's only a theory.

 

[Athenian200]

For me, I'd say the bottom two, Safety and Physiological need, would be accurate. But here's the order that seems right to me, the bottom being most important, and the top being least.

Transcendence
Self-actualization
Esteem Needs
Need to Know and Understand
Belongingless and love
Aesthetic Needs
Safety
Physiological Needs


However, I should note that you quoted Wikipedia, which isn't an authoritative source. A person who wasn't well-versed the theory might have written it, and not explained it well. Personally, I believe people may tend to focus more on the lower levels (especially the first two) until they are filled, but that it isn't as monolithic and inflexible as you would think from reading it.

Although Maslow's claim was that people wouldn't focus on the higher needs in the hierarchy until the lower ones were filled, I don't think this proved entirely accurate. I heard of some research on the topic that's claimed the model only proved accurate for the lower level needs, but broke down at the higher levels, which is basically what I would have guessed.

Also, if this model is accurate, how do you explain martyrs, scientists who have no families and few friends, and people who seem content living in abject poverty who won't try to better themselves, seeing it as a way of "rebelling"? There are too many examples of people who don't fit into this hierarchy correctly even at the lower levels, so all it can measure, in my opinion, is tendencies.

 

[Totenkindly]

However, I should note that you quoted Wikipedia, which isn't an authoritative source. A person who wasn't well-versed the theory might have written it, and not explained it well. Personally, I believe people may tend to focus more on the lower levels (especially the first two) until they are filled, but that it isn't as monolithic and inflexible as you would think from reading it.

I agree with the caveat; but Wiki's strength is that it's open to everyone, so any very "wrong" ideas of the pyramid will be immediately shot down by the rest of the group due to lack of credibility. (This Wiki tends to at least describe very well the general consensus on what something is.)

It's only a theory.

Agreed. I see some general value in it, but I don't think it is necessarily definitive.

One point of agreement: What I see in general is that it is definitely difficult for people to focus on more abstract and self-growth-oriented enterprise when all of their concentration and energy necessarily has to go towards survival. We see this again and again: People in survival situations tend to drop all of the speculations and abstractions and only have the resources to focus on what they need to live.

Just as one interesting example, here is a quote from John Krakauer's book about Chris McCandless (most likely an INTJ, as best as I can tell from the text), the young adult who wandered the US to find himself and eventually ended up dying in the Alaskan wilderness:

Unlike Muir and Thoreau, McCandless went into the wilderness not primarily to ponder nature or the world at large, but rather; to explore the inner country of his own soul. He soon discovered, however, what Muir and Thoeau already knew: An extended stay in the wilderness inevitably directs one's attention outwards as much as inward, and it is impossible to live off the land without developing both a subtle understanding of, and a strong emotional bond with, that land and all it holds.

The entires in McCandless's journal contain few abstractions about wilderness or, for that matter, few ruminations of any kind. There is scant mention of the surrounding scenery. Indeed, as Roman's friend Andrew Liske points out upon reading a photocopy of the journal, "These entires are almost entirely about what he ate. He wrote about hardly anything except food."

So the pyramid is based on physiological and security needs, then the needs to satisfy curiosity (which is basically partially an internalized desire still coupled firmly to the outside world), and finally the completely internalized need for self-actualization, where the demands of the outside world are unconnected to one's internal need to behave a certain way and/or become a certain person.

IOW, self-survival becomes less important than actualization.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

One point of agreement: What I see in general is that it is definitely difficult for people to focus on more abstract and self-growth-oriented enterprise when all of their concentration and energy necessarily has to go towards survival. We see this again and again: People in survival situations tend to drop all of the speculations and abstractions and only have the resources to focus on what they need to live.

I do not agree. I think this is what you find when a modern Westerner gets thrown into a survival situation, but it is not true when you consider the normal mode of life of people in less technologically advanced societies where survival is naturally more difficult. What you find is that even when their safety and survival needs are taxed, they still have their love and esteem needs met.

A good example of this is the movie "God Grew Tired of Us" which is about refugees from Sudan. They struggled to stay alive for much of the beginning of the movie, but stayed close to each other throughout their struggles. When they came to the U.S. they found life much harder in ways than in Sudan. They could easily get food and shelter compared to being in Sudan, but their work situations kept them apart and they were not accepted by society as a whole and they described living in America as very hard (and remember this is coming from people who nearly starved to death).

 

[Totenkindly]

I do not agree. I think this is what you find when a modern Westerner gets thrown into a survival situation, but it is not true when you consider the normal mode of life of people in less technologically advanced societies where survival is naturally more difficult. What you find is that even when their safety and survival needs are taxed, they still have their love and esteem needs met.

A good example of this is the movie "God Grew Tired of Us" which is about refugees from Sudan. They struggled to stay alive for much of the beginning of the movie, but stayed close to each other throughout their struggles. When they came to the U.S. they found life much harder in ways than in Sudan. They could easily get food and shelter compared to being in Sudan, but their work situations kept them apart and they were not accepted by society as a whole and they described living in America as very hard (and remember this is coming from people who nearly starved to death).

Could you talk more about this, or provide some more examples (references to books / web articles etc.) if you have any at hand?

It is definitely possible I am seeing this through a western mindset and did not even realize it... go ahead, expand my mind.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

The needs can be minimally met before moving to the next level. Poor starving artists are a case in point.

 

[Mempy]

What you find is that even when their safety and survival needs are taxed, they still have their love and esteem needs met.

A good example of this is the movie "God Grew Tired of Us" which is about refugees from Sudan. They struggled to stay alive for much of the beginning of the movie, but stayed close to each other throughout their struggles.

Banding together in groups is another way humans survive. Pain and suffering bring people together, as well as shared needs. Ten people building a hut and looking for food and water is more efficient than one person doing all the work by himself. So perhaps people come together for survival needs, but end up getting their love and social needs met too.

I do agree that very basic needs probably need to be met before anyone can devote much time to star-gazing. I'm not surprised that the studies Athenian mentioned support these trends. And like she said, they're just trends.

 

[proteanmix]

Could you talk more about this, or provide some more examples (references to books / web articles etc.) if you have any at hand?

It is definitely possible I am seeing this through a western mindset and did not even realize it... go ahead, expand my mind.

Yeah, I saw that film as well and I was struck by the difficulties those guys faced once they got to America. They were stressed out about bills, school, work, transportation, they gained weight, and were still actively taking care of their family and friends in Sudan. I think Westerners tend to glorify and romanticize the non-Western places as bastions of higher existence or something. I mean look that the new Wes Anderson movie (the Darjeeling Limited) and needing to go to India to experience spiritual awakening. Countless films and books outline people going to Tibet or Kenya (and evidently Alaska) as a catalyst to a transcendental experience. Where do the people in these countries go when they want to be spiritually awakened? What do they think about their countries and ways of life being portrayed in such a manner?

As far as Maslow's Hierarchy is concerned I basically agree with it. You can't really fight in a revolution if you're hungry. You don't know if you're being scammed if you can't read. The basics must be taken care of first before you can move onto bigger things. We have whole industries dedicated to this in the West because most (not all which people tend to forget) of our citizens have the time and income to be to be higher up on this pyramid although I think a lot of people aren't necessarily looking for self-actualization. I think they've lost their purpose and meaning in life and are desperate to find something to fulfill them.

 

[ygolo]

Yeah, I saw that film as well and I was struck by the difficulties those guys faced once they got to America. They were stressed out about bills, school, work, transportation, they gained weight, and were still actively taking care of their family and friends in Sudan. I think Westerners tend to glorify and romanticize the non-Western places as bastions of higher existence or something. I mean look that the new Wes Anderson movie (the Darjeeling Limited) and needing to go to India to experience spiritual awakening. Countless films and books outline people going to Tibet or Kenya (and evidently Alaska) as a catalyst to a transcendental experience. Where do the people in these countries go when they want to be spiritually awakened? What do they think about their countries and ways of life being portrayed in such a manner?

I usually feel a lot better when I go back to visit India. Somehow, I think my sense-of-belonging needs are met better there (despite the fact that I can barely understand the language now).

As far as Maslow's Hierarchy is concerned I basically agree with it. You can't really fight in a revolution if you're hungry. You don't know if you're being scammed if you can't read. The basics must be taken care of first before you can move onto bigger things. We have whole industries dedicated to this in the West because most (not all which people tend to forget) of our citizens have the time and income to be to be higher up on this pyramid although I think a lot of people aren't necessarily looking for self-actualization. I think they've lost their purpose and meaning in life and are desperate to find something to fulfill them.

Also, the wording was:

The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus once all the lower needs in the pyramid are satisfied.

Note: it says the needs higher needs only come into focus once (not are not met till) the lower ones are satisfied.

So they could already be met, but that is not what is focused on. It could be in a tribal village, that they go from basic food-needs directly to self-actualization because the needs in-between are already met.

I am wondering how accurate that is.

 

[MacGuffin]

Maslow was an NF, his hierarchy probably is more relevant to NFs.

 

[htb]

Pyramidal transcendence? Marlow must have been a Goa'uld, too.

 

[ygolo]

Pyramidal transcendence? Marlow must have been a Goa'uld, too.

I always find it funny when people not familiar with eastern religions, and things based on them, poke fun at these by comparing them to fiction they know.

Is it possible the work of fiction got the idea from the eastern religion?

Or perhaps they are independently striving towards the same truth, which means the similarity is a good thing.

 

[Schizm]

I wouldn't even call it a theory. I bet it has been proven to be true as many times as it has proven to be false.

 

[ygolo]

I wouldn't even call it a theory. I bet it has been proven to be true as many times as it has proven to be false.

I had similar bets.

I am not sure how one would measure when something "comes into focus"?

At a societal level, in the long term, I think this is still mainly true.

As a society, I think the U.S. is at the "sense-of-belonging" stage (perhaps preparing to move back to the "esteem" stage).

Meh. Sometimes I binge on speculation. I feel sick afterwards.

 

[ptgatsby]

I wouldn't even call it a theory. I bet it has been proven to be true as many times as it has proven to be false.

I'm curious how people are concluding this. It basically states that we need;

Security;

To survive as individuals for species;
To secure our individual security;
To secure our social needs;
To secure our ego;

Once security has been established, we move onto improvement. Tangible improvements, tools... then art, the less useful forms. And after that, comes civilisation, if you will.

I do see how this can be somewhat an issue with stuff like cognitive vs artistic - I don't remember that being seperate... but in any case, most of it to be pretty true. Everyone here is taking their previous needs met. There is also something of a scale - once you start starving you can't focus on anything else. The biological need to eat is so strong that it utterly prevents any higher forms from manifesting. It's similar for each step up. Security needs to come before any form of group relationship can happen - they tend to work together. The same reason we need to find a social network before our ego really emerges - we have nothing to show when we have no peers.

Having said all that, there is a blurry line around what is meant by "met", which I believe is defined as it no longer being the sole focus of the organism. That is to say that "needing food" isn't about worrying where your next meal will come from but the literal need for food right now.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Note: it says the needs higher needs only come into focus once (not are not met till) the lower ones are satisfied.

So they could already be met, but that is not what is focused on. It could be in a tribal village, that they go from basic food-needs directly to self-actualization because the needs in-between are already met.

I am wondering how accurate that is.

I hadn't thought about it in those terms. I think Maslow's hierarchy normally suggests to people that they should achieve each one successively from the bottom up. I do not agree with that, but I can agree with what you say. They may have their needs met, but not even realize it. It's not that the needs are met in a particular order, but simply that awareness of what one lacks comes into focus in a particular order.

Could you talk more about this, or provide some more examples (references to books / web articles etc.) if you have any at hand?

It is definitely possible I am seeing this through a western mindset and did not even realize it... go ahead, expand my mind.

What I am thinking of in particular is that in order for a person to have their love, esteem, self-actualization, etc... needs met they first have to give up survival and safety needs. Let me see if I can give a couple of examples. One comes from Tolstoy's Confession, in chapter thirteen he says:

"I renounced the life of our class and recongnized that this is not life but only the semblance of life, that the conditions of luxury under which we live make it impossible for us to understand life, and that in order to understand life I must understand not the life of those of us who are parasites but the life of the simple working people, those who create life and give it meaning."
...
"Man's task in life is to save his soul. In order to save our souls, we must live according to the ways of God, and in order to live according to the ways of God, we must renounce the sensual pleasures of life; we must labor, suffer and be kind and humble."

Tolstoy found meaning in life from living with the Russian peasants. The needs higher on Maslow's hierarchy: love, esteem, self-actualization, etc... were met by giving up many of the physical things that were ensuring his safety and security needs.

Also the Bible talks about giving up what you have to gain something greater. Consider this quote:

"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in the present age (homes, borthers, sisters, mothers, children and fields-and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life."
-Mark 10:29-30

I use this quote mostly because it is clear that you are not simply gaining something in the next life, but in the current life as well. I think there are better quotes though that illustrate the idea that you must give up physical safety/luxury/survival type things in order to gain something greater. That greater something is in this life, not simply the next one. That greater something is along the lines of love, esteem, etc..., i.e. the type of things that come from forgiveness and fellowship.

Unfortunately I do not have a good quote from Joseph Campbell handy, but I'll very roughly paraphrase that the Hero's Journey basically talks about the same things. The hero must start out by leaving behind what is familiar to him, the safety of home and the like, in order to face his trials and ultimately gain a boon. These stories are often metaphors of a person's coming of age, so they represent giving up the safety of home in order to gain esteem, a wife, knowledge of oneself, etc....

In all of these cases though the idea is that there is something to be gained in leaving behind survival and security needs, and that something is generally related to a person's love, esteem, self-actualization, etc... needs.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

One more complexity, are needs are not successively met at every point in time. Our various fulfillments shift as we move through time, so it wouldn't make sense for it to be strictly successive, but overlapping. Someone who has achieved self-actualization isn't going to immediately forget who they are if they go hungry for a week, but during that week the search for food may be more meaningful than gaining recognition or something else higher on the pyramid.