Stats for nerds
2recommend
7mentions
6people
2016–2022years
29% recommend71% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- Indeed, Maslow never drew anything like that. The psychologist Scott Bary Kaufman debunks this myth more thoroughly in his 2019 write-up here[1]. (Aside: Kaufman updates Maslow's "hierarchy" idea with a "sailboat" metaphor[2].)
Maslow always emphasized the relative satisfaction of needs. To quote from his famous paper[3]:
[quote]
... As for the concept of emergence of a new need after satisfaction of the prepotent [i.e. dominant] need, this emergence is not a sudden, saltatory phenomenon but rather a gradual emergence by slow degrees from nothingness. For instance, if prepotent need A is satisfied only 10 per cent then need B may not be visible at all. However, as this need A becomes satisfied 25 per cent, need B may emerge 5 per cent, as need A becomes satisfied 75 per cent need B may emerge 90 per cent, and so on.
[/quote]
If you want to understand Maslow, there's no escaping his two seminal books:
• Motivation and Personality, 1954
• Toward a Psychology of Being, 1962
He writes with superb clarity, and is an absolute joy to read. If you're really, really short on time, at least read his paper, A Theory of Human Motivation[3].
[1] https://scottbarrykaufman.com/who-created-maslows-iconic-pyr...
[2] https://scottbarrykaufman.com/sailboat-metaphor/
[3] http://worrydream.com/refs/Maslow%20-%20A%20Theory%20of%20Hu...
- Excellent explanation of Maslow's Theory of Human Motivation [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
- Careful there. It is true that Maslow did not have as much data as he should have (and would've liked). He admits it as much, and repeatedly warns in his books that "more data is needed". That said, on your point (2), he explicitly says in his paper (A Theory of Human Motivation) that the "hierarchy" is not absolutely universal:
"No claim is made that it is ultimate or universal for all cultures. The claim is made only that it is relatively more ultimate, more universal, more basic, than the superficial conscious desires from culture to culture [...]"
(Where "it" == Maslow's classification of basic needs.)
A counter-point to Maslow's model is the "self-determination theory"[1]. It is "a meta-theory that consists of several mini-theories".* * * - Maslow was working with a theory of human motivation, not just survival. I quote the following from his original text https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm:
> what happens to man's desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled?
> At once other (and 'higher') needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still 'higher') needs emerge and so on. This is what we mean by saying that the basic human needs are organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency.
> One main implication of this phrasing is that gratification becomes as important a concept as deprivation in motivation theory, for it releases the organism from the domination of a relatively more physiological need, permitting thereby the emergence of other more social goals. The physiological needs, along with their partial goals, when chronically gratified cease to exist as active determinants or organizers of behavior. They now exist only in a potential fashion in the sense that they may emerge again to dominate the organism if they are thwarted. But a want that is satisfied is no longer a want. The organism is dominated and its behavior organized only by unsatisfied needs. If hunger is satisfied, it becomes unimportant in the current dynamics of the individual.
Basically, Maslow's definition of a "need" is "a human drive that acts as a determinant of behavior" and not purely in the sense of "a physiological requirement for survival".
You may disagree with his framework as presented (I do, but on psychoanalytic grounds, that it's overgeneralized, lacking a few steps in terms of how individuals interact with desire, and therefore only sociologically and not individually useful), but it seems difficult to argue humans lack "psychical needs" of some form beyond pure physiology.
In the case of hikikomori, recall that they spend a lot of time with media, creating "parasocial" relationships, or even on (usually anonymous) social media websites, which do offer a form of social interaction and connectedness. But there is a reason why very few individuals end up as genuine hermits, without any social interaction whatsoever.
- > undesirable work
> our needs are covered
Human desires and human needs don't work the way you're probably thinking. I'd suggest to take into account Maslow's theory of human motivation. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm
- Some motivations last a lifetime, I don't think our desire to feed ourselves is going away anytime soon.. A lot of current thinking on the subject is based on Abraham Maslow's 1947 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation". Your "hard discipline" seems based on the "esteem" part of his "hierarchy of needs" while this might be a sufficient motivator for some, for many it will likely be beneficial to look for other motivators.
