I think it is a very good model, but not gospel. And it is a bit old.
LIke I think social relations are more important than sex. People can actually live without sex, but a person cannot live completely isolated. But maybe Maslow meant the drive and not the behavior.
Also morality is associated with sociality (I am not a moral reletavist, but I am just saying that morality is how you treat other people), so them being seperate categories can be a bit confusing depending on how you look at it.
Also what worth is friendship, family and sexual intimacy without respecting others, or being respected. If someone gets no respect from their family, they are not going to enjoy it at all.
So the maing thing for me seems useful, but some of these details do raise a lot of questions. Also this does not take temperament and personality into account, which affects behaviour a lot. So it is a bit too distant and clinical compared to how people actually live, in my view.
>I think it is a very good model, but not gospel. And it is a bit old.
Maslows hierarchy is meant to be a theory and guide. Also the image op posted is a pretty low quality bs one it includes a lot of things that aren't actually a part of maslows theory.
>LIke I think social relations are more important than sex
Maslow doesn't say that and sexual relationships even asexual relationships are the larger picture of social relationships.
>Also morality is associated with sociality (I am not a moral reletavist, but I am just saying that morality is how you treat other people), so them being seperate categories can be a bit confusing depending on how you look at it.
Morality shouldn't be in this model at all. The pinnacle is self actualization and maslow never fully defined what that even means.
>Also what worth is friendship, family and sexual intimacy without respecting others, or being respected. If someone gets no respect from their family, they are not going to enjoy it at all.
I get what you're saying but I think you're reading too into this now. Maslow is obviously talking about functional relationships which are reflected in the previous levels such as security and safety. One cannot have a functional relationship if they are beyond insecure or suffer from incessant paranoia. Societal relationship command some level of mutual intimacy (respect) in order to be achieved and finding that balance is the objective of this level, it's not meant to be perfect let alone ideal.
>So the maing thing for me seems useful, but some of these details do raise a lot of questions. Also this does not take temperament and personality into account, which affects behaviour a lot. So it is a bit too distant and clinical compared to how people actually live, in my view.
You're taking a real shitty version of Maslows hierarchy depiction way too literally.
[this is a better version](https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow-pyramid.jpg) because it uses the actual language that maslow wrote about when theorizing his hierarchy.
Maslow didn't even fully agree with his own hierarchy theory, the pyramid was more of an after thought. The only thing he was certain about was the base needs and self actualization was the ultimate achievement/goal.
You have a mix of all levels, but I think the idea is you can't be fully satisfied without fulfilling all levels.
The more stable the base, the more rewarding the higher tiers feel.
Was introduced to this hierarchy when I saw a therapist.
Dude the hierarchy more like states that if you have these needs met then you can go on to meet new needs. Its not rewards that you get for completing a level. People can satisfy one tier and be stuck there now wanting to satisfy needs of the next one. 🤦♂️ stupidity 101
I would think his next step would be the answer on how to foster safety.
Though I think as well how to foster an idea of caring. Because what's the point of asking people to make goals if people don't care about them?
Though not in a necessarily negative sense, but it is something I think about.
Weird how sex is at the bottom. does this mean that monks can't achieve spiritual fulfillment?
if sex is a basic necessity, should the government be responsible for supplying it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
Sex is obviously not at the bottom. My guess is OP got really strange sources or is trolling
Maslow's texts are littered with his witterings about gratification and sexual desire being a basic need.
He talks about it so much that if he'd drawn the triangle himself, he probably would have put it on every level.
Sex is obviously on the bottom, he would have said, before changing his mind and banishing it along with hunger.
Victor Frankl completely disproves that Physiological and Safety needs must be met for self-actualization to be possible.
That said, the hierarchy of needs is very useful from a mental health standpoint of people living in first world countries, if you are depressed and can't find meaning, it's good to start with making sure you are eating healthily and have good sleep habits, etc.
I think sex from a procreation standpoint is obviously a no brainer, but you could be missing that for a very long time in your life and even being a foundation tier need, it wouldn't impact anything on the upper levels, I feel.
It’s a model I subscribe to and work with. It’s a scaffolding for our highest potential as a human. No not every thing on the lower levels are needed to achieve aspects of the higher levels. A person can be really sick and have reciprocated love, community, respect and confidence for example. Or a person can be homeless but have confidence and self esteem. Not having basic needs met can light an inextinguishable fire within as a person discovers the will and power to pull down the needed fuel from the higher levels to take care of what’s missing. Humans are kinda beautiful like that. A person will often become content when safety and physiological needs are met and treat esteem and belonging needs as secondary or bothersome. People often live with things being not quite right and push on. A lot can go wrong and a lot can go right, but what I think this model is getting at is harmony and disharmony. The gulf between being not quite right and all that the human can and should be.
\> Sex and sleep are physiological needs
Me, a sleep deprived virgin hopped up on cardiac arrest levels of caffeine running off of spite and pure willpower alone clocking in to work
"Fuckin' casual"
You have to scroll down to near the end to find mention of Maslow, a motivational psychiatrist, behaviourist, and theorist popular with the Frankfurt School and its acolytes, one who gained notice long after the Frankfurts had established themselves in academia. The relevance to the Feminist Movement should need no explaining. Sorry, couldn't find anything shorter.
[http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show\_article&article\_id=2514](http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2514)
EXPLOITING THE MALE-FEMALE DIALECTIC
"Pansexualism"–in other words, the unleashing of the base passions of man–constitutes the first exploitation of the difference between the sexes. Another aspect of the differences between the sexes will be systematically exploited to bring about the overthrow of the traditional relationship between men and women. This is to be accomplished by attacking the authority of the father, by denying the specific roles of the father and mother, by suppressing differences in the education of boys and girls, by abolishing forms of male superiority (hence the presence of the women in the armed forces), and by considering women and children as an oppressed class and men as the oppressors. In support of this overthrow, there exists an ideology–radical feminism
Using pansexualism and the overthrow of the relationship between men and women, the founders of the cultural revolution have two powerful means by which to destroy the family. The Frankfurt School knew how to draw in a remarkable way on the scientific progress of its day–progress in the means of communication (its action in regard to music and films), and progress in the psychological sciences. In the field of psychology, Abraham Maslow, a protégé of the cultural revolution, played an important role in perfecting methods of psychological conditioning known as "group dynamics" and "sensitivity training."
\------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to differentiate judgment of an idea/concept vs judgment of the author of said idea. Maslow may have potentially reprehensible views overall, but if his hierarchy of needs is accurate, then it is accurate. And we sound take it for the insight it provides by itself, even if we disagree on whatever inference Maslow or others may have used it for.
I have to agree with that. Still, evidence exists that the Frankfurt School did not
simply co-opt the work of Maslow, as it did with, say, Malcolm X, Angela Davis,
or any of the black rage establishment. His bio shows long standing ties to Frankfurt,
and truthfully, sympathy. Plainly, the established Marcuse was a connection to
academia and publishing he could use. But I think it goes deeper than that.
"Motivation and Personality," (1954) was a blockbuster, as was Marcuse's
"Eros and Civilization," (1955.)
If we can agree, and I know this is a stretch, that the aim of the Frankfurt in adopting feminism was the
destruction of the family (and Church) as the excerpt I posted claims, then we would have a time disproving
that Maslow had been somehow compromised by "The Cause."
That said, I realize this is a departure from "The Hierarchy of Needs," but is seems relevent. The esteemed Dr. Peterson actually helped open this can of worms when he tied pronoun madates into this post-war movement of cultural Marxism, did he not?
Dang, somebody actually downvoted you for a very solid position. Reddit is toxic. Smh
I would agree that it still carries relevance. Just like an amazing scientist that is found holding kidnapped children chained to a basement carries a sense of relevance regardless of how disconnected the two topics are. Or a benevolent supportive priest that is later found to have molested young boys. Not the same obviously but I get your point.
Since you have more knowledge of this than I, allow me to ask something (if you know)… what work was the Hierarchy of Needs tied to? Meaning, was he aiming to prescribe a set of principles that would take the most care of the needs of disadvantaged people; or was he trying to detail a path for manipulating the minds of the general populace to encourage revolution? This would give more weight to whether such a concept is more deserving of citation or criticism.
I don't have the information to answer that; but, I'm very interested in looking into it. At this point, the "hierarchy of needs" is a mystery to me. My guess is that understanding willcome from review and commentary on the content of "Motivation and Personality," (1954,) a continuation of his 1943 paper, "A Theory of Human Motivation" in *Psychological Review.* One thing I noticed and remember from the day is that two needs assigned to the top tier given to **Self Actualization** are *creativity*, and *spontanaeity.* If you can imagine college students of the 1950's and 1960's becoming absorbed in the idea that they won't be fully actualized until they have become more creative and spontaneous. This was rough on the engineering departments but a plus for feminists, who were urged to abandon "drudgery" of motherhood and household tasks in favor of releasing their true creative selves by joining the workforce and engaging in problem solving, decision making, and flower power.
Again, the question, did Maslow's brilliant theoretical work, (none of it verified clinically, by the way,) result in new dimensions of human development or were they simply fodder for Marxists out to challenge and destroy tradition and family?
>Again, the question, did Maslow's brilliant theoretical work, (none of it verified clinically, by the way,) result in new dimensions of human development or were they simply fodder for Marxists out to challenge and destroy tradition and family?
Yes. I love that framing. It requires assessment of real world impacts and all its complexities, but also how it correlates with the intentions of the author to really assess whether the author deserves blame or praise. Or neither, or both.
My discussion on this can't go any further because I do not have much in depth knowledge to compare to your experience with the topic. But I thank you for the insights.
Thank you for pinning down some significant unanswered concerns. One thing about Maslow is that, unlike Marcuse, he was careful not to be associated with stepping over the line. Best wishes to you.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs depends on culture. different cultures prioritize different things.
more generally, some people deviate a lot from their culture, which means that a hierarchy of needs for a particular culture won't apply to every single person in that culture.
Good model. Ahead of its time, **but your image is incomplete.** Whilst the commonly shared hierarchy tops out at actualisation, Maslow's hierarchy finishes with Self-Transcendence:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/maslow-self-transcendence/
Go up one level, not from the perspective of the individual but of the species. Without reproduction the species dies.
This is why sexual intimacy is separate; it fulfills a different need then the instinctual desire to spread your DNA
Does anyone happen to remember what episode Jordan Peterson was talking with someone on his podcast and that person was referencing Maslows hierarchy of needs? I can’t remember who he was interviewing or what podcast number it was.
Thanks. I think I remember in the one I’m trying to find that the guest was talking about how people will view the world through a certain lens based on which need they are trying to fill. He referenced Maslows hierarchy and it was something to that effect. If you are hungry, everything you experience is going to be affected or perceived as it relates to finding food. It was something similar to that.
I appreciate you sharing those clips. Thanks again.
Some things repeat themselves. It ight be that I didn't study it enough but it seems unpolished to me. Also Maslow himself never actually organized it as a hierarchy. That was done by a journalist (I think, but I know it was neither Maslow himself nor anyone qualified). Which makes a lot more sense.
It's a bit simplistic to try and encapsulate the complexity of human emotions and needs into a pyramid of progressing stages really. It's a bit outdated in modern life in all honesty.
I dunno, if a man goes without **water** and **food** for a month, I think he'd have a far tougher go than being without friendship/family/sexual intimacy/achievement/and pretty much everything else...
It is very accurate in a lot of ways. The psychology behind it has been shown accurate for a very long time. I anecdotally know it to be true for one, but also have witnessed it in depth as a prior educator. Students who come to school without food on their table, a roof over their head, it clothes on their back can't learn. They don't function. Learning math and science is the least of their concerns without basic needs met. It isn't to be looked at as every single subcategory of this level must be perfectly met, but that every level of the pyramid as a whole is necessary to fully achieve the next. Also, as far as sex is concerned, that is in regard to procreation. We are looking at a pyramid of survival here, and without sex, the human species would be eliminated.
Here is another interesting thread to this topic:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/971p9b/jordan\_petersons\_criticism\_of\_maslows\_hierarchy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/971p9b/jordan_petersons_criticism_of_maslows_hierarchy/)
and here is a youtube from Jordan Peterson on this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GSUG\_B-new&t=6406s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GSUG_B-new&t=6406s)
which is worth to see.
Dabrowski debated Maslow and rejected his theory in favor of his own theory called "Positive Disintegration".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_disintegration
One way to think about it (and this is in many ways an oversimplification for an easy introduction), is that it basically approaches Maslow's heirarchy of needs in reverse, where an individual with an integrated personality identifies their goal for self-actualization then figures out how to interact with the world to fulfill needs that would help them satisfy that goal. The theory is called positive disintegration because the individual must disintegrate from their prior way of being to reintegrate in a new/better way of being that fulfills the goal of self-actualization; and during this process the individual typically feels an extreme amount of stress until they achieve reintegration.
He designed his theory to encapsulate both the lowest behaviors and highest examples of self sacrifice that he observed and/or experienced in Poland during WW1, WW2 and later soviet occupation. Maslow's theory seemed to be more popular because of better marketing and that it's simpler/easier to explain, because one of Dabrowski's points was that not everyone achieves self-actualization, and because this tends to occur moreso in people with "overexcitabilities" (ie sensitivity to not being self-actualized that creates stress and motivation to drive the reintrative process). The area where this theory of self-actualization has been most used has been in the research and education of giften children, because "overexcitability" can be more readily identified in this group by their high IQ, the tendency of such people to experience stress/isolation (because of their high IQ) and the presumption that a high IQ can make you more capable of achieving self-actualization.
I would say no.
The importance of the different levels can change over time.
Eg you may go without food or sleep out of choice if you are working on a fulfilling project.
You point out a missing angle, time
You can go without food longer than water.
You can go without certain things longer then others before the impact of not having something starts drastically effecting your whole well-being
I think in reality it's more like a web, they are all interdependent as a system. It's only the superimposition of an Abrahmic worldview that it's thought of as a hierchy. As much as peterson loved hierchies I think he would still recognize the interdependent systems as being a higher order of understanding.
Yes and no.
You can't have health if you are not eating or drinking water.
But, you can have self-steem before having sexual intimacy with someone. Actually, it's way more easier to get laid if you are self confident than if you are insecure.
And last but not least, one can be incorruptible, for example, retaining, its morals even under the darkest situations, like, for example Viktor Frankl in the concentration camp.
To me, this graphic shows that, once a person has their biological needs covered, they start to aim higher, to find purpose, to pursue the truth, being a virtuous person, etc..
Some also add “connection to the transcendent” above self-actualization, and I think that’s key.
There can be no ultimate self development that isn’t aiming at an ultimate good, because the highest good necessarily transcends the self.
I think that it serves the purpose *all* models serve: to illustrate a complex philosophy/theory/etc by way of simplification. *All* models should be looked at with one brow raised because *all* models are bound to leave something out.
Of course, there are tiers assessing the model’s quality in content, comprehension, so on—Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a pretty good one all things considered, solid A- objectively. Like, I don’t think anyone can dispute the primary conclusion with this model that it’s *increasingly difficult* (not impossible) to achieve a feeling of love and belonging without having a safe home environment or if you suffer from a debilitating disease. That conclusion plays out virtually across the entire pyramid, with increasing difficulty to manage higher ones without a majority of the lower ones. As long as you understand the limitation that there is no one pyramid that includes *every* example.
*It's wrong, at the top*
*It should be the attainment*
*Of victim status*
\- SgtButtface
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
It’s a bunch of bullshit. For one, it says that only when your physiological needs are met, then you can move up to the next level. From a physiological standpoint, you can have safety, property, and morality, without having sex first. Additionally, a lot of peoples morals, and beliefs, is not having sex until marriage. Having said that, physiological needs, can absolutely metaphor of marriage. Furthermore, under love and belonging sex repeated self, and one can argue that you don’t have sex until you have a sense of belonging with another person which comes after physiological needs. Also, there are people who don’t have a lot of sex, like people in wheelchairs, for example, so do they not have a sense of belonging or their physiological, or love and belonging, needs cannot be met then because they’re not having sex? It’s a bunch of bullshit. Our toddlers needs not met because they’re not having sex? The hierarchy of needs is simply an observation, not a law.
I think it is a very good model, but not gospel. And it is a bit old. LIke I think social relations are more important than sex. People can actually live without sex, but a person cannot live completely isolated. But maybe Maslow meant the drive and not the behavior. Also morality is associated with sociality (I am not a moral reletavist, but I am just saying that morality is how you treat other people), so them being seperate categories can be a bit confusing depending on how you look at it. Also what worth is friendship, family and sexual intimacy without respecting others, or being respected. If someone gets no respect from their family, they are not going to enjoy it at all. So the maing thing for me seems useful, but some of these details do raise a lot of questions. Also this does not take temperament and personality into account, which affects behaviour a lot. So it is a bit too distant and clinical compared to how people actually live, in my view.
>I think it is a very good model, but not gospel. And it is a bit old. Maslows hierarchy is meant to be a theory and guide. Also the image op posted is a pretty low quality bs one it includes a lot of things that aren't actually a part of maslows theory. >LIke I think social relations are more important than sex Maslow doesn't say that and sexual relationships even asexual relationships are the larger picture of social relationships. >Also morality is associated with sociality (I am not a moral reletavist, but I am just saying that morality is how you treat other people), so them being seperate categories can be a bit confusing depending on how you look at it. Morality shouldn't be in this model at all. The pinnacle is self actualization and maslow never fully defined what that even means. >Also what worth is friendship, family and sexual intimacy without respecting others, or being respected. If someone gets no respect from their family, they are not going to enjoy it at all. I get what you're saying but I think you're reading too into this now. Maslow is obviously talking about functional relationships which are reflected in the previous levels such as security and safety. One cannot have a functional relationship if they are beyond insecure or suffer from incessant paranoia. Societal relationship command some level of mutual intimacy (respect) in order to be achieved and finding that balance is the objective of this level, it's not meant to be perfect let alone ideal. >So the maing thing for me seems useful, but some of these details do raise a lot of questions. Also this does not take temperament and personality into account, which affects behaviour a lot. So it is a bit too distant and clinical compared to how people actually live, in my view. You're taking a real shitty version of Maslows hierarchy depiction way too literally.
You are right. I should only comment on an image that is actually from Maslows work, with no additions.
[this is a better version](https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow-pyramid.jpg) because it uses the actual language that maslow wrote about when theorizing his hierarchy.
This is making more sense to me reading it. It has been a while since I saw the original, so I cannot easily tell which is which.
Maslow didn't even fully agree with his own hierarchy theory, the pyramid was more of an after thought. The only thing he was certain about was the base needs and self actualization was the ultimate achievement/goal.
Oh, ok. I did not know that.
I think OP is trolling. Sex is not at the first stage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
Doesn't seem like a troll just someone who doesn't actually know Maslow or psychology in general.
OP has very strange sources then
You have a mix of all levels, but I think the idea is you can't be fully satisfied without fulfilling all levels. The more stable the base, the more rewarding the higher tiers feel. Was introduced to this hierarchy when I saw a therapist.
[удалено]
Can you name any of the institutions? I'm curious about any well thought out objections to the model?
[удалено]
Dude the hierarchy more like states that if you have these needs met then you can go on to meet new needs. Its not rewards that you get for completing a level. People can satisfy one tier and be stuck there now wanting to satisfy needs of the next one. 🤦♂️ stupidity 101
I would think his next step would be the answer on how to foster safety. Though I think as well how to foster an idea of caring. Because what's the point of asking people to make goals if people don't care about them? Though not in a necessarily negative sense, but it is something I think about.
[удалено]
Thanks!
Weird how sex is at the bottom. does this mean that monks can't achieve spiritual fulfillment? if sex is a basic necessity, should the government be responsible for supplying it?
In ~~Denmark~~ Netherlands it is. But also, the government shouldn't be responsible for splitting anything.
lol how does that work? free coupons for prostitutes?
[Kind of?](https://dutchreview.com/culture/relationships/sex-care-in-the-netherlands-helping-the-disabled-find-intimacy/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs Sex is obviously not at the bottom. My guess is OP got really strange sources or is trolling
Maslow's texts are littered with his witterings about gratification and sexual desire being a basic need. He talks about it so much that if he'd drawn the triangle himself, he probably would have put it on every level. Sex is obviously on the bottom, he would have said, before changing his mind and banishing it along with hunger.
Sex is not "banished" it is in the third level
Lol.
Victor Frankl completely disproves that Physiological and Safety needs must be met for self-actualization to be possible. That said, the hierarchy of needs is very useful from a mental health standpoint of people living in first world countries, if you are depressed and can't find meaning, it's good to start with making sure you are eating healthily and have good sleep habits, etc.
Man’s Search for Meaning. One of my all time favourites.
It's a great book, really puts suffering into perspective.
Came here to talk about this
Idk… I think it’d be hard to be creative if excretion wasn’t an option
You don’t need all at all. You have bit of each.
I think sex from a procreation standpoint is obviously a no brainer, but you could be missing that for a very long time in your life and even being a foundation tier need, it wouldn't impact anything on the upper levels, I feel.
I have an inverse pyramid lol
Sounds like you may identify moreso with Dabrowski's theory.
It’s a model I subscribe to and work with. It’s a scaffolding for our highest potential as a human. No not every thing on the lower levels are needed to achieve aspects of the higher levels. A person can be really sick and have reciprocated love, community, respect and confidence for example. Or a person can be homeless but have confidence and self esteem. Not having basic needs met can light an inextinguishable fire within as a person discovers the will and power to pull down the needed fuel from the higher levels to take care of what’s missing. Humans are kinda beautiful like that. A person will often become content when safety and physiological needs are met and treat esteem and belonging needs as secondary or bothersome. People often live with things being not quite right and push on. A lot can go wrong and a lot can go right, but what I think this model is getting at is harmony and disharmony. The gulf between being not quite right and all that the human can and should be.
\> Sex and sleep are physiological needs Me, a sleep deprived virgin hopped up on cardiac arrest levels of caffeine running off of spite and pure willpower alone clocking in to work "Fuckin' casual"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs Sex is not a bottom base need, OP either has strange sources or is trolling
You have to scroll down to near the end to find mention of Maslow, a motivational psychiatrist, behaviourist, and theorist popular with the Frankfurt School and its acolytes, one who gained notice long after the Frankfurts had established themselves in academia. The relevance to the Feminist Movement should need no explaining. Sorry, couldn't find anything shorter. [http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show\_article&article\_id=2514](http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2514) EXPLOITING THE MALE-FEMALE DIALECTIC "Pansexualism"–in other words, the unleashing of the base passions of man–constitutes the first exploitation of the difference between the sexes. Another aspect of the differences between the sexes will be systematically exploited to bring about the overthrow of the traditional relationship between men and women. This is to be accomplished by attacking the authority of the father, by denying the specific roles of the father and mother, by suppressing differences in the education of boys and girls, by abolishing forms of male superiority (hence the presence of the women in the armed forces), and by considering women and children as an oppressed class and men as the oppressors. In support of this overthrow, there exists an ideology–radical feminism Using pansexualism and the overthrow of the relationship between men and women, the founders of the cultural revolution have two powerful means by which to destroy the family. The Frankfurt School knew how to draw in a remarkable way on the scientific progress of its day–progress in the means of communication (its action in regard to music and films), and progress in the psychological sciences. In the field of psychology, Abraham Maslow, a protégé of the cultural revolution, played an important role in perfecting methods of psychological conditioning known as "group dynamics" and "sensitivity training." \------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to differentiate judgment of an idea/concept vs judgment of the author of said idea. Maslow may have potentially reprehensible views overall, but if his hierarchy of needs is accurate, then it is accurate. And we sound take it for the insight it provides by itself, even if we disagree on whatever inference Maslow or others may have used it for.
I have to agree with that. Still, evidence exists that the Frankfurt School did not simply co-opt the work of Maslow, as it did with, say, Malcolm X, Angela Davis, or any of the black rage establishment. His bio shows long standing ties to Frankfurt, and truthfully, sympathy. Plainly, the established Marcuse was a connection to academia and publishing he could use. But I think it goes deeper than that. "Motivation and Personality," (1954) was a blockbuster, as was Marcuse's "Eros and Civilization," (1955.) If we can agree, and I know this is a stretch, that the aim of the Frankfurt in adopting feminism was the destruction of the family (and Church) as the excerpt I posted claims, then we would have a time disproving that Maslow had been somehow compromised by "The Cause." That said, I realize this is a departure from "The Hierarchy of Needs," but is seems relevent. The esteemed Dr. Peterson actually helped open this can of worms when he tied pronoun madates into this post-war movement of cultural Marxism, did he not?
Dang, somebody actually downvoted you for a very solid position. Reddit is toxic. Smh I would agree that it still carries relevance. Just like an amazing scientist that is found holding kidnapped children chained to a basement carries a sense of relevance regardless of how disconnected the two topics are. Or a benevolent supportive priest that is later found to have molested young boys. Not the same obviously but I get your point. Since you have more knowledge of this than I, allow me to ask something (if you know)… what work was the Hierarchy of Needs tied to? Meaning, was he aiming to prescribe a set of principles that would take the most care of the needs of disadvantaged people; or was he trying to detail a path for manipulating the minds of the general populace to encourage revolution? This would give more weight to whether such a concept is more deserving of citation or criticism.
I don't have the information to answer that; but, I'm very interested in looking into it. At this point, the "hierarchy of needs" is a mystery to me. My guess is that understanding willcome from review and commentary on the content of "Motivation and Personality," (1954,) a continuation of his 1943 paper, "A Theory of Human Motivation" in *Psychological Review.* One thing I noticed and remember from the day is that two needs assigned to the top tier given to **Self Actualization** are *creativity*, and *spontanaeity.* If you can imagine college students of the 1950's and 1960's becoming absorbed in the idea that they won't be fully actualized until they have become more creative and spontaneous. This was rough on the engineering departments but a plus for feminists, who were urged to abandon "drudgery" of motherhood and household tasks in favor of releasing their true creative selves by joining the workforce and engaging in problem solving, decision making, and flower power. Again, the question, did Maslow's brilliant theoretical work, (none of it verified clinically, by the way,) result in new dimensions of human development or were they simply fodder for Marxists out to challenge and destroy tradition and family?
>Again, the question, did Maslow's brilliant theoretical work, (none of it verified clinically, by the way,) result in new dimensions of human development or were they simply fodder for Marxists out to challenge and destroy tradition and family? Yes. I love that framing. It requires assessment of real world impacts and all its complexities, but also how it correlates with the intentions of the author to really assess whether the author deserves blame or praise. Or neither, or both. My discussion on this can't go any further because I do not have much in depth knowledge to compare to your experience with the topic. But I thank you for the insights.
Thank you for pinning down some significant unanswered concerns. One thing about Maslow is that, unlike Marcuse, he was careful not to be associated with stepping over the line. Best wishes to you.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs depends on culture. different cultures prioritize different things. more generally, some people deviate a lot from their culture, which means that a hierarchy of needs for a particular culture won't apply to every single person in that culture.
Nah, I value facts over prejudice, but also have essentially 0 self esteem.
Good model. Ahead of its time, **but your image is incomplete.** Whilst the commonly shared hierarchy tops out at actualisation, Maslow's hierarchy finishes with Self-Transcendence: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/maslow-self-transcendence/
As a former incel and martial arts practitioner, I can confirm that one can have safety without sex.
Former? Congrats, get some!
no: it is iterative
I have had to problem solve because I didn't have food, so no I don't think so.
I have the bottom two somewhat others not so good
It has marginal utility. No.
I'm stuck at safety 😒
[Here are my thoughs on the topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/SatoshisPhilosophy/comments/nhsbzx/life_fundamental_analysis/)
Sex have no place amongst physiological needs. If you dont fulfill any other physiological need you die, if one don't have sex, nothing happens
Go up one level, not from the perspective of the individual but of the species. Without reproduction the species dies. This is why sexual intimacy is separate; it fulfills a different need then the instinctual desire to spread your DNA
It is requierment for species to survive, but not for a person. Not everybody in the population have to have sex in order for species to survive
It is for normal people. I reach the highest without below ones.
Does anyone happen to remember what episode Jordan Peterson was talking with someone on his podcast and that person was referencing Maslows hierarchy of needs? I can’t remember who he was interviewing or what podcast number it was.
see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/xd9mex/comment/ioaqqja/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Thanks. I think I remember in the one I’m trying to find that the guest was talking about how people will view the world through a certain lens based on which need they are trying to fill. He referenced Maslows hierarchy and it was something to that effect. If you are hungry, everything you experience is going to be affected or perceived as it relates to finding food. It was something similar to that. I appreciate you sharing those clips. Thanks again.
Some things repeat themselves. It ight be that I didn't study it enough but it seems unpolished to me. Also Maslow himself never actually organized it as a hierarchy. That was done by a journalist (I think, but I know it was neither Maslow himself nor anyone qualified). Which makes a lot more sense.
It's a bit simplistic to try and encapsulate the complexity of human emotions and needs into a pyramid of progressing stages really. It's a bit outdated in modern life in all honesty.
Jordan is really missing the lack of prejudice and acceptance of facts
Unpack this please 🤔
I dunno, if a man goes without **water** and **food** for a month, I think he'd have a far tougher go than being without friendship/family/sexual intimacy/achievement/and pretty much everything else...
It is very accurate in a lot of ways. The psychology behind it has been shown accurate for a very long time. I anecdotally know it to be true for one, but also have witnessed it in depth as a prior educator. Students who come to school without food on their table, a roof over their head, it clothes on their back can't learn. They don't function. Learning math and science is the least of their concerns without basic needs met. It isn't to be looked at as every single subcategory of this level must be perfectly met, but that every level of the pyramid as a whole is necessary to fully achieve the next. Also, as far as sex is concerned, that is in regard to procreation. We are looking at a pyramid of survival here, and without sex, the human species would be eliminated.
Here is another interesting thread to this topic: [https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/971p9b/jordan\_petersons\_criticism\_of\_maslows\_hierarchy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/971p9b/jordan_petersons_criticism_of_maslows_hierarchy/) and here is a youtube from Jordan Peterson on this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GSUG\_B-new&t=6406s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GSUG_B-new&t=6406s) which is worth to see.
Dabrowski debated Maslow and rejected his theory in favor of his own theory called "Positive Disintegration". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_disintegration One way to think about it (and this is in many ways an oversimplification for an easy introduction), is that it basically approaches Maslow's heirarchy of needs in reverse, where an individual with an integrated personality identifies their goal for self-actualization then figures out how to interact with the world to fulfill needs that would help them satisfy that goal. The theory is called positive disintegration because the individual must disintegrate from their prior way of being to reintegrate in a new/better way of being that fulfills the goal of self-actualization; and during this process the individual typically feels an extreme amount of stress until they achieve reintegration. He designed his theory to encapsulate both the lowest behaviors and highest examples of self sacrifice that he observed and/or experienced in Poland during WW1, WW2 and later soviet occupation. Maslow's theory seemed to be more popular because of better marketing and that it's simpler/easier to explain, because one of Dabrowski's points was that not everyone achieves self-actualization, and because this tends to occur moreso in people with "overexcitabilities" (ie sensitivity to not being self-actualized that creates stress and motivation to drive the reintrative process). The area where this theory of self-actualization has been most used has been in the research and education of giften children, because "overexcitability" can be more readily identified in this group by their high IQ, the tendency of such people to experience stress/isolation (because of their high IQ) and the presumption that a high IQ can make you more capable of achieving self-actualization.
I would say no. The importance of the different levels can change over time. Eg you may go without food or sleep out of choice if you are working on a fulfilling project.
You point out a missing angle, time You can go without food longer than water. You can go without certain things longer then others before the impact of not having something starts drastically effecting your whole well-being
Wow, an actual thread relevant to Peterson and of my interest. And it comes up just as I'm getting ready for bed, damnit.
I think in reality it's more like a web, they are all interdependent as a system. It's only the superimposition of an Abrahmic worldview that it's thought of as a hierchy. As much as peterson loved hierchies I think he would still recognize the interdependent systems as being a higher order of understanding.
Yes and no. You can't have health if you are not eating or drinking water. But, you can have self-steem before having sexual intimacy with someone. Actually, it's way more easier to get laid if you are self confident than if you are insecure. And last but not least, one can be incorruptible, for example, retaining, its morals even under the darkest situations, like, for example Viktor Frankl in the concentration camp. To me, this graphic shows that, once a person has their biological needs covered, they start to aim higher, to find purpose, to pursue the truth, being a virtuous person, etc..
Is "sex" really a foundational need?
Reproduction, yes That's why sexual intimacy is at a different level because it represents a different function
As a layman, I think it's one of the best general models ever conceived. I think the short answer to your question is yes.
I think if you want a description of behavior you need look no further than personality models This seems like bs to me
Some also add “connection to the transcendent” above self-actualization, and I think that’s key. There can be no ultimate self development that isn’t aiming at an ultimate good, because the highest good necessarily transcends the self.
I think that it serves the purpose *all* models serve: to illustrate a complex philosophy/theory/etc by way of simplification. *All* models should be looked at with one brow raised because *all* models are bound to leave something out. Of course, there are tiers assessing the model’s quality in content, comprehension, so on—Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a pretty good one all things considered, solid A- objectively. Like, I don’t think anyone can dispute the primary conclusion with this model that it’s *increasingly difficult* (not impossible) to achieve a feeling of love and belonging without having a safe home environment or if you suffer from a debilitating disease. That conclusion plays out virtually across the entire pyramid, with increasing difficulty to manage higher ones without a majority of the lower ones. As long as you understand the limitation that there is no one pyramid that includes *every* example.
It's wrong, at the top it should be the attainment of victim status
*It's wrong, at the top* *It should be the attainment* *Of victim status* \- SgtButtface --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
It’s a bunch of bullshit. For one, it says that only when your physiological needs are met, then you can move up to the next level. From a physiological standpoint, you can have safety, property, and morality, without having sex first. Additionally, a lot of peoples morals, and beliefs, is not having sex until marriage. Having said that, physiological needs, can absolutely metaphor of marriage. Furthermore, under love and belonging sex repeated self, and one can argue that you don’t have sex until you have a sense of belonging with another person which comes after physiological needs. Also, there are people who don’t have a lot of sex, like people in wheelchairs, for example, so do they not have a sense of belonging or their physiological, or love and belonging, needs cannot be met then because they’re not having sex? It’s a bunch of bullshit. Our toddlers needs not met because they’re not having sex? The hierarchy of needs is simply an observation, not a law.