Dumaguete Info Search


Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by cabb, Jun 14, 2019.

  1. cabb

    cabb DI Forum Patron ✤Forum Sponsor✤

    Messages:
    1,007
    Trophy Points:
    226
    Ratings:
    +729 / -0
    His theory is essentially an idea on how people are motivated. Does who he studied automatically invalidate the theory? I'm interested to know where this Nazi pure-race crap you are referring to came from.

    Maslow was a prominent personality theorist and one of the best-known American psychologists of the twentieth century. Skeptical of behaviorism and psychoanalysis, Maslow worked to develop a more expansive theory of human motivation, one that could accommodate the powerful influence of biology and the environment while honoring the human capacity for free will.

    It's a frame work to try to explain behavior. Is it simple, sure, does making it complicated make it better, nope. Saying something is complicated and therefore any attempts at understanding are fruitless is a good way to accomplish nothing. :meh:

    No excuse necessary or expected.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Rye83

    Rye83 with pastrami Secured Account Highly Rated Poster SC Connoisseur Veteran Army

    Messages:
    10,720
    Trophy Points:
    451
    Occupation:
    Electronic Warfare
    Location:
    Herat
    Ratings:
    +12,354 / -11
    Blood Type:
    O+
    Methodology doesn't automatically invalidate a hypothesis, but I believe the his very limited number of people he studied (18 people in total) makes it a bit of bullsh*t science. You need a bit bigger sample size than 18 of the world's most famous people. They are not an accurate depiction of the human population. He also didn't even conduct interviews or even meet these people...he just read their biographies and writings. He had absolutely no way of knowing if these people were self-actualized (is that the right way to say it?).

    His work (I believe all of the 18 people he studied were white very successful males) and his personal comments make heavy reference to eugenics.
    And when he thinks that only the top 1% of college students don't fall into the categories of "crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy"...well, p*ss on him and his "theory". His theory has also fell flat on its face when taken outside the 1940's American culture.

    "Was" being the keyword. Freud was also a prominent and one of the best-known American psychologists. Doesn't mean their ideas hold up today. I find his chart to be complete nonsense and easily disproven. It is nothing more than flawed pop-psychology today. It's on the same level as Freud saying babies get a sexual gratification when they sh*t themselves or that children want to bang their parents IMO.
     
    • Genius Genius x 1
  3. Happy Camper

    Happy Camper DI Forum Adept Showcase Reviewer

    Messages:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +398 / -0
    Blood Type:
    O+
    Freud was Austrian not American.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. OP
    OP
    cabb

    cabb DI Forum Patron ✤Forum Sponsor✤

    Messages:
    1,007
    Trophy Points:
    226
    Ratings:
    +729 / -0
    The mind is a complicated thing and anyone who tells you they understand it and can predict behavior consistently should be buying lottery tickets. That doesn't mean that there aren't useful frameworks for trying to understand human behavior.

    At the risk of getting another slap down. I'd be interested in hearing Mr. C's thoughts if he is reading this.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2019
  5. Cerne

    Cerne DI Forum Adept

    Messages:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Ratings:
    +389 / -0
    Ahhhhh (dons scientists white coat, assumes professorial demeanour, positions spectacles on the tip of nose, looks over rims...and wades in)

    Just a couple of points. A sample of 18 is not necessarily rubbish science, the n=1 study is considered by some to be the ‘purest’ form of psychological study. From a quantitative angle 18 is insufficient - there isn’t enough power in the numbers to draw meaningful conclusions. Particularly in the medical/psychological Sciences authors are encouraged not to form conclusions of certainty - authors of reports/studies are bound to point out limitations in their work and the methods they used. I haven’t used the US’ FOIA in donkeys - but it’s startling to find the number of studies ‘buried’ by drug companies as their drugs have sometimes quite serious ‘issues’ - in the journals you can find the anything from n=5-40,000 and upwards for the numbers game. Pretty good science. For psychological treatments it’s pretty difficult to get those sorts of numbers - but as a rule of thumb non-student populations with pretty rigorous controls, um, upwards of 100 - and I like to see plenty of supporting replicated work.

    18, surprisingly for some would be a pretty good qualitative study. Here it’s all about processes, themes, the minutiae and detail. Most of my students tend to opt for this as they simply can’t get the numbers to do the ‘big’ science. Useful for finding out what folk actually think about a service or a treatment. Long hours are spent coding themes, issues derived from one to one interviews, focus groups and so on. Just an example - and again authors/students are urged to highlight their limitations. I’ve just persuaded my Dean to purchase the NVivo software package to simplify this process - if I don’t get coffee on my lecturn before the start of every glittering with wisdom class from the students next semester they are going to FAIL.

    On towards Maslow - yikes - been a while since I delved into his stuff and I had to juice up several synapses and jolt the circuitry. Industrial and Occupational psychology, ah yes, we don’t have that department in my abode of work. So I couldn’t cheat and ask someone before replying here. But it would strike me as pretty old fashioned, basic and well, one size doesn’t necessarily fit all does it? So learning about his 18 middle class white men came across as good criticism. I’m always wary of ‘grand theory’ as I am of acronyms- what did they leave out to make it look good, or what did they squeeze in to make it read smart? The Hierarchy of Needs looks appealing, looks logical, but I’m very unsure of what “self actualisation” is. For me it’s a tall glass of Don Papa with plenty of ice, a little tonic and a squeeze of calamansi. Obviously sipped ang say bay bay whilst watching Wales run in 8 tries against England unopposed. A bikini clad floozie, or failing that the wife offering simultaneous intimate services and I think I can guess what Maslow was driving at.

    Freud- yep Austrian and like Maslow a product as we all are of his era. If it’s longer than it’s thicker it’s a phallic symbol. Beats me how anyone can still make a living using his guff - but they do. Nuff said.

    Cheers,

    C
     
  6. Rye83

    Rye83 with pastrami Secured Account Highly Rated Poster SC Connoisseur Veteran Army

    Messages:
    10,720
    Trophy Points:
    451
    Occupation:
    Electronic Warfare
    Location:
    Herat
    Ratings:
    +12,354 / -11
    Blood Type:
    O+
    Which makes it make so much more sense. :wink:
     
  7. Rye83

    Rye83 with pastrami Secured Account Highly Rated Poster SC Connoisseur Veteran Army

    Messages:
    10,720
    Trophy Points:
    451
    Occupation:
    Electronic Warfare
    Location:
    Herat
    Ratings:
    +12,354 / -11
    Blood Type:
    O+
    Maslow's "study" involved reading these 18 people's biographies (many of them not even from the same century). Kinda hard to make any meaningful conclusion from that and how could you possibly determine if someone is "self actualized" from reading a book that many of them didn't write themselves? IMO, it's a garbage "theory" and his methods for coming to his conclusion were a joke not based on any real science...as were many of the psychological studies from the 1930's-1950s.
     
  8. OP
    OP
    cabb

    cabb DI Forum Patron ✤Forum Sponsor✤

    Messages:
    1,007
    Trophy Points:
    226
    Ratings:
    +729 / -0
    The pinnacle of Maslow’s original hierarchy was self-actualisation. This is perhaps the hardest level to define, as it means different things to different people. Broadly, it’s about fulfilling the full extent of your own potential across all the areas that are personally important to you. It’s about not depending on the opinions of others, but about knowing what matters most to you, achieving it, and finding satisfaction in that. It involves a high level of self-awareness, and unlike other needs on the hierarchy, cannot be achieved without a person’s basic needs being met. Maslow felt achieving self-actualisation was rare, as people’s goals seldom match their lives.

    and

    Maslow’s later writings criticise his earlier idea of self-actualisation as the highest level of needs. Instead, he proposed self-transcendence, which involves altruistically helping others to achieve self-actualisation. Not long before his death, he wrote “Transcendence refers to the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to human beings in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos.” If this sounds like spirituality, then that was very much Maslow’s intention. After all, self-transcendence, or something like it, is a key goal of many religions.

    Self-actualisation has possible religious overtones and elements of altruism. :o o: Are you a Scientologist? :clown:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2019
  9. OP
    OP
    cabb

    cabb DI Forum Patron ✤Forum Sponsor✤

    Messages:
    1,007
    Trophy Points:
    226
    Ratings:
    +729 / -0
    There in lies the fun, trying to figure it out. Life is a puzzle to be solved, not a river to float down.
     
  10. Rye83

    Rye83 with pastrami Secured Account Highly Rated Poster SC Connoisseur Veteran Army

    Messages:
    10,720
    Trophy Points:
    451
    Occupation:
    Electronic Warfare
    Location:
    Herat
    Ratings:
    +12,354 / -11
    Blood Type:
    O+
    So it isn't so much science as it is religion and philosophy? I guess we are in agreement now?
     
Loading...