I'm not entirely sure if I agree with Maslow's hierarchy, but what I do notice is that the negative experiences are on the bottom, while the positive are at the top. This is because to experience a positive, energized life, one must first deal with the negative things. Hunger, thirst, shelter, and safety are necessary for us to begin to enjoy life. We can certainly feel pleasure even if we are starving, but that would not be "enjoying" life (and I'm sure you'll agree with me). So what I am interpreting here is that each stack on the pyramid is contingent upon the lower stack.

My criticism would be that some of the stacks might be arbitrary. For example, someone could be a hermit up in the mountains and not need love. They might be totally okay with this not being a part of their life, and still have high esteem and self-actualization. I'm not sure if we can divide these feelings like this.

But I do think we can divide negative and positive experiences, and I do think that the positive experiences are contingent upon the control over negative experiences.

That's my two pesos.

I don't have a problem with Maslow's hierarchy of needs as long as one remembers that it is rather simple. It isn't exhaustive, it isn't sequential (from bottom to top), and it isn't prescriptive. There are additional needs not listed, like prowess or puissance, (physical ability to accomplish tasks), external status (and not just internal esteem), companionship, a community in which to meet needs, and so on.

If what Maslow was saying is that we tend to strive towards fulfillment, most people would probably agree with him. I know a few people who seem to prefer self destruction, but they are outliers. If he was saying we have many needs, few would disagree with him. The Hierarchy is an illustration -- it isn't a school of thought.

That's my two pfennigs.

Well said BC. What's the conversion rate between pesos and pfennigs?

d) the human condition is too complex for anything this basic and unscientific — schopenhauer1

Also, Schop, I'd like to add, the human condition is not a scientific concept. It's a philosophical one, and psychology has a history of being a bridge between strict science and strict philosophy.

How is it not sequential when it is a hierarchy? It isn't Maslow's List of Needs, but rather Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

The main problem I have with it is that it is upside down. The primary needs are psychological; given sanity, peace of mind, and and awareness, matters social and physiological are either trivially solvable, or trivially unsolvable.

The main problem I have with it is that it is upside down. The primary needs are psychological; given sanity, peace of mind, and and awareness, matters social and physiological are either trivially solvable, or trivially unsolvable. — unenlightened

Spot on! Maslow's "therapy" attempts to walk man on a ladder, from obtaining the "lower" needs to obtaining the "higher" needs, which he sees as progressing naturally from the lower ones. However - Maslow fails to realise that obtaining the lower needs presupposes higher needs which are already fulfilled. For example, it's very hard to obtain "love/belonging" if one suffers from anxiety and cannot exit the house. But on the other hand - if one had the higher needs fulfilled - then by default, even if circumstances were such that one couldn't obtain love/belonging, one wouldn't despair.

The needs are vague and ill-defined so it has remarkable applicability. The hierarchy becomes a bit fuzzy especially when the fulfillment of needs intersect (e.g., the care of a mother for a child). I would guess that there is evidence that the fulfillment of these needs in the order offered by Maslow leads to greater well-being for individuals in a society (e.g., mouse-models). It probably also has some applicability in policy-making by governments.

I think it's useful to try and generalise about what what impels the human being to act. Why does one try to act at all? And if one does, to what end? Is 'need' is at the heart of this? How do people in general act on the human predicament? Is it susceptible to such sweeping generalisation?

Wiki seems to argue that when surveyed people in different cultures identify two sorts of need, but the sorting varies according to the culture. That seems an odd idea, but I think I tend to assume two sorts of need: some kind of Cartesian division in me, whatever my theories :)

An interesting case-study for this would be in cases where meeting needs becomes a challenge (e.g., after natural disasters). The hierarchy of needs might be played out in such cases as you see people begin to rebuild.

How is it not sequential when it is a hierarchy? It isn't Maslow's List of Needs, but rather Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. — Agustino

According to Wikipedia, Maslow didn't create the pyramid - or any other graphic representation of needs. An illustrator at a textbook publishing company is most likely responsible. "Maslow described human needs as ordered in a prepotent hierarchy—a pressing need would need to be mostly satisfied before someone would give their attention to the next highest need." The pyramid "may give the impression that the Hierarchy of Needs is a fixed and rigid sequence of progression. Yet, starting with the first publication of his theory in 1943, Maslow described human needs as being relatively fluid—with many needs being present in a person simultaneously."

The 'hierarchy of need" was but one of several profession topics in psychology which Abraham Maslow pursued.

Chew on this: This is what Maslow thought a self-actualized person would be (self-actualization would be located at the top of the pyramid):

• Truth: honest, reality, beauty, pure, clean and unadulterated completeness
• Goodness: rightness, desirability, uprightness, benevolence, honesty
• Beauty: rightness, form, aliveness, simplicity, richness, wholeness, perfection, completion,
• Wholeness: unity, integration, tendency to oneness, interconnectedness, simplicity, organization, structure, order, not dissociated, synergy
• Dichotomy: transcendence: acceptance, resolution, integration, polarities, opposites, contradictions
• Aliveness: process, not-deadness, spontaneity, self-regulation, full-functioning
• Unique: idiosyncrasy, individuality, non comparability, novelty
• Perfection: nothing superfluous, nothing lacking, everything in its right place, just-rightness, suitability, justice
• Necessity: inevitability: it must be just that way, not changed in any slightest way
• Completion: ending, justice, fulfillment
• Justice: fairness, suitability, disinterestedness, non partiality,
• Order: lawfulness, rightness, perfectly arranged
• Simplicity: nakedness, abstract, essential skeletal, bluntness
• Richness: differentiation, complexity, intricacy, totality
• Effortlessness: ease; lack of strain, striving, or difficulty
• Playfulness: fun, joy, amusement
• Self-sufficiency: autonomy, independence, self-determining.[36]

Anyone here want to fess up to being fully self-actualized?

Anyone here want to fess up to being fully self-actualized? — Bitter Crank

Nah. Slugs and snails and puppy-dog tails; that's what little philosophers are made of. Even when all our basic needs are all met we're still assholes.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is sequential, but only in the sense that the lower needs have to be fulfilled before the others can be attended to.
Imagine one day walking across the road to your Rolls Royce to go to lunch at a fancy restaurant . Someone come up behind you and holds a gun to your head and asks for your wallet, watch and phone. What do you do? Continue to think about lunch or worry about your car getting scratched? You do neither, you give him what he wants because survival is the first thing on the list of needs.

You would also stop being generous with handouts if you lost your job and lose your pride if you had to beg to eat.
Of course we see examples of people doing the exact opposite of what would be sensible according to Maslow, but there are several other theories that can explain them.

I find it interesting that if Maslow is partially right that humans have roughly the same kinds of generalized needs, that the needs being met are not evenly distributed. Even if governments or economies can provide for a modicum of the two foundational needs, the upper three tiers on the pyramid (simply following the basic diagram model) can never really be guaranteed. But that is where people can go many ways with it:
1) Schopenhauer- for the pessimistic inclining crowd and those who tend to want to abolish the need for need
2) Nietzsche/Camus for the take it like a man crowd and who want to incorporate suffering or that which one usually finds bad as a "good" (overcoming suffering)

But I am sure that an existential therapist or humanist therapist would try to work with a patient in therapy to achieve goals relating to unmet needs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_therapy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_psychology

I also wonder if this hierarchy is only applicable in a Westernized context or is cross-cultural. Would one say a Bushman can be self-actualized? Do traditional societies try to meet these needs in different ways or does this hierarchy not apply to non-Western societies?

I also wonder if this hierarchy is only applicable in a Westernized context or is cross-cultural. Would one say a Bushman can be self-actualized? Do traditional societies try to meet these needs in different ways or does this hierarchy not apply to non-Western societies? — schopenhauer1

The needs of each society are different so that it would be the same for the individuals that make up that society. If you check out the list above, I believe you will find that it applies to bushmen, samurai, Cossacks London taxi drivers.

I find it interesting that if Maslow is partially right that humans have roughly the same kinds of generalized needs, that the needs being met are not evenly distributed. Even if governments or economies can provide for a modicum of the two foundational needs, the upper three tiers on the pyramid (simply following the basic diagram model) can never really be guaranteed. But that is where people can go many ways with it: — schopenhauer1

Popper argued that a government should operate under the negative utilitarian approach, that is, an anti-frustrationist, prioritarian method. Smart later argued that if this was adopted worldwide, this would lead to the extermination of all life. But realize that this was only meant to apply to the government's modus operandi, not the rest of life.

Anyone here want to fess up to being fully self-actualized? — Bitter Crank

No, not remotely. That sounds like a god, not a real human. Are there such people? That sounds positively transcendent. I mean, we can all be some of those things some of the time. And some people more than others. But all of that all of the time?

Anyone here want to fess up to being fully self-actualized? — Bitter Crank

*Grudgingly raises hand*

Anyone here want to fess up to being fully self-actualized? — Bitter Crank

The idea that people do actually reach these levels is kind of funny. But you have to remember that these are ideals that people are supposed to strive for not automatic step ups from lower levels.

No one could really think of being honest or truthful when their family is dying of hunger and it is very rare to find people living in the street that are making plans to start a family.

"Maslow described human needs as ordered in a prepotent hierarchy—a pressing need would need to be mostly satisfied before someone would give their attention to the next highest need." — Bitter Crank

Interesting - but I would disagree with Maslow that all those have to be treated as "needs", even if they may be perceived as being needs at first.

Interesting video I found that touches on the hierarchy of needs and also general happiness. Might be worth a watch.

I saw one with "self-transcendence" above self-actualization. It's where you've actualized and are helping others to actualize.

Whatever happened to Agustino? Needs not met, probably.

He's been active on the other forum.

Hey I like Maslow. I used to edit the Australian Transpersonal Psychology Association newsletter, decades ago (a very modest affair, I hasten to add). Maslow was one of the poster boys of that movement. It got hijacked by Ken Wilber into 'integral theory' and also by the Positive Psychology movement, but I really liked 'transpersonal psychology' back in the day.

Has humanity achieved self-actualization? If it has and if it will the next stage is transcendence (the tip of the Maslow's pyramid). Are we to become gods?

Has humanity achieved self-actualization? If it has and if it will the next stage is transcendence (the tip of the Maslow's pyramid). Are we to become gods? — Agent Smith

If a human became god, they would only strive to become mortal again

If a human became god, they would only strive to become mortal again — pfirefry

I've heard of cases like that. Maybe transcendence loops back to (basic) physiological needs. Torus universe.

Maybe, maybe not. It's always nice to see new sources of value once one has cherished the old ;) But it's definitely an interesting idea. That new profile pic certainly looks nice, though the last one was also quite impressive.

What I have found on psychology courses is that they focus often on the lower scale of needs. Maslow was saying that the basis for moving on to the higher needs is on the lower ones are fulfilled. However, if you read his writings he is emphasising the importance of peak experiences. When I mentioned this on in a class related to once the tutor seemed puzzled and I think that she probably had not read Maslow's writings at all.

In particular, Roper developed a model of nursing care and activities of living linking it to the basis Maslow's hierarchy. That may have influenced the way many have understood Maslow's hierarchy, although I am sure that the philosophical consideration of his ideas involves a holistic approach in emphasising the full spectrum of human needs.