Maslow's hierarchy of needs....

[Warrior74]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mazlow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg


The lower four layers of the pyramid are what Maslow called "deficiency needs" or "D-needs": physiological, safety and security, love and belonging, and esteem. With the exception of the lowest (physiological) needs, if these "deficiency needs" are not met, the body gives no physical indication but the individual feels anxious and tense.


What do you guys think about this and can you see how it relates to your life and the game?

 

[ketostix]

I think Maslow was on to something with his heirarchy of needs, but I'm not sure about how he placed needs at each level. Also the levels seems to be some what redundant with basically the same thing at different levels. He places sex as a phsiological need and that might be true for men, but them he places sexual intimacy a few levels higher and the same thing with morality. What's the difference? I guess it makes sinse if you look at it as a need once met changes somewhat in nature. I don't know, I just think he has too many levels and I'm not sure the needs fit neatly into each level.

 

[yuppaz]

Pretty interesting stuff.... it seems like a lot of the focus here is on the top level of needs. I wonder if women in their gathering of feelings from outside of them instinctively know that if someone is at that top level of needs (SELF esteem vs. external esteem etc.) then they are likely going to find a better quality of person. I've noticed myself that women that are lacking in lower level areas kind of disqualify themselves from me. Also could be that if your other needs are met more readily (like someone who is attractive and gets pretty much whatever they want in base and social needs) is VERY attracted to someone who displays these upper level traits, but if they lack the second tier down traits they are less attracted (like if you get nervous etc. it must mean you are lacking and therefore not quite the catch). I've got no proof, just an observation. Rollo should chiiiiiieeeeeem, his cup of tea

 

[Jitterbug]

Also the levels seems to be some what redundant with basically the same thing at different levels. He places sex as a phsiological need and that might be true for men, but them he places sexual intimacy a few levels higher and the same thing with morality. What's the difference?

The difference between "sex" and "sexual intimacy" is that between getting your rocks off with a prostitute / ONS (who would only care about getting paid or getting herself off) versus with a girl who would actually care if you're gonna drop dead tomorrow, does want to have sex with you and care if you're enjoying it (e.g half-decent girlfriend).

Using the same line of thought, I'm sure you can explain to yourself the other stuff.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I'm quite familiar with Maslow actually and I should point out that all of the higher 'needs' in the pyramid necessitate that the lower base needs are met prior to actualization and more esoteric concerns (needs). I should also point out that the self analysis required to evaluate where a person is positioned in this hierarchy is still subject to his or her personal conditions and personal interpretations. A lot of touchy-feely humanistic psychology relies heavily on this very subjective analysis. For instance when Carl Jung proposed that men enter a 'mid-life crisis' around 40 y.o. I wonder whether an Umbuti tribesman on the Serengheti would regret not having a Corvet by the time he reached 40? It's all conditional and relative.

Self-actualization is also an idealized state of contentment. The problem being that contentment, by it's very nature, is transitory, thus self-actualization is transitory. Growth, maturity and personal development require challenge and discontentment in order to progress. So while self-actualization may be a nice goal state and a great motivator, once achieved, assuming it is achievable, there's always the haunting "now what?" question once you're 'self-actualized' thus perpetuating the cycle of contentment vs. discontentment and ultimately questioning whether you were really self-actualized at all to begin with.

 

[ketostix]

The difference between "sex" and "sexual intimacy" is that between getting your rocks off with a prostitute / ONS (who would only care about getting paid or getting herself off) versus with a girl who would actually care if you're gonna drop dead tomorrow, does want to have sex with you and care if you're enjoying it (e.g half-decent girlfriend).

Using the same line of thought, I'm sure you can explain to yourself the other stuff.

But still for a male that's kind of splitting hairs. Why not just say a person needs "sexual intimacy" (loving relationship) and not put two stratas on it. It would be like saying you need food on a physiological level and then on a higher level you need "good food". Do you see my point of how he's almost arbitrarily and subjectively labeling needs and placing them at different levels?

 

[Luthor Rex]

I'm quite familiar with Maslow actually and I should point out that all of the higher 'needs' in the pyramid necessitate that the lower base needs are met prior to actualization and more esoteric concerns (needs). I should also point out that the self analysis required to evaluate where a person is positioned in this hierarchy is still subject to his or her personal conditions and personal interpretations. A lot of touchy-feely humanistic psychology relies heavily on this very subjective analysis. For instance when Carl Jung proposed that men enter a 'mid-life crisis' around 40 y.o. I wonder whether an Umbuti tribesman on the Serengheti would regret not having a Corvet by the time he reached 40? It's all conditional and relative.

Yes is certainly is subjective and that's part of why I take a lot of it (and the social conventions it inspires) with a grain of salt.

In a similar way to your Umbuti tribesman with a mid-life crisis: can you imagine the son's of Genghis Khan becoming teenagers, painting their nails black, acting all emo and telling their father "but daaaaaad, I don't want to rape and pillage today!"

 

[DJeasy]

Self-actualization is also an idealized state of contentment. The problem being that contentment, by it's very nature, is transitory, thus self-actualization is transitory. Growth, maturity and personal development require challenge and discontentment in order to progress. So while self-actualization may be a nice goal state and a great motivator, once achieved, assuming it is achievable, there's always the haunting "now what?" question once you're 'self-actualized' thus perpetuating the cycle of contentment vs. discontentment and ultimately questioning whether you were really self-actualized at all to begin with.

I wonder if self-actualization is a dynamic rather than static state characterized by alternating and oscillating periods of contentment and discontentment. Someone may find contentment in the pursuit of meaningful goals. Reaching such goals may produce a relatively brief, orgasmic burst of happiness before the "now what?" If, however, they had or made other meaningful goals, then the answer to "now what?" would be to simply pursue the next goals and it is certainly possible to have more goals than can be attained in a lifetime. Based on description, a self-actualized state seems to be one of conscious freedom.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Here's a secret - there's no such thing as contentment. Being content implies that life is static, it's not, and to be honest, how boring would that be anyway? Life consists of varying states of discontent: why else would you bother doing anything? But the good news is that it's more fun and more beneficial to manage discontent than to endure contentment (which you can't anyway since it's transitory at best).

The trick is to understand that there are 2 kinds of discontent - creative and destructive discontent. What you choose to do with that discontent makes all the difference in the world. You will only get what you've gotten if you keep doing what you've done. Don't allow yourself to fall back into old destructive habits of dealing with discontent. Don't bother with anti-depressants and self-help books when a good hard workout at the gym would serve you better.

The truth is I'm always discontent, but creatively so. The minute you can look yourself in the mirror and be happy with what you see you're sunk. You can always improve, even after achieving things that were once very important and difficult to attain. Happiness is a state of being, it's in the 'doing' not the 'having done.'

 

[TheHumanist]

That reminds me of Aristotle. I haven't thought about it in a good, long time. Happiness is an activity. You have to be doing it.

 

[DJeasy]

I agree with you on the merits of discontentment. A diet or exercise plan does not work so well (or at all?) if one can look into the mirror and be fully content with what they see physically. Motivation necessarily requires a fundamental amount of discontent with a present state (of mind, affairs, etc.).

Your method of discontent management is what I aspire to follow and I think what self-actualized refers to, the sort of conscious freedom that provides the logical tools and drive from which creativity stems. In this method, certainly by timescale, the pursuit of happiness is more "happy" than actually reaching some destination (and stopping).

I don't think this is the only method, however, and that it can also be pursued by means of active ignorance and/or delusion. A person might consciously choose not to know more about a birthday surprise they pre-discovered. A person that does not seek to understand the plot structure of a book may find genuine surprise and enjoyment out of reading another book that followed the same carbon copy. The structure was not boring because it was not recognized or understood. This method is more reactive and may require external providers/stimuli to invoke positive emotions, but I think it can work as well. So where happiness in the active method is in the doing, happiness in the second is in a subsequent "ignorance is bliss" series of reacting.

 

[scrouds]

I know a nice, god fearing christian man I call a good friend. He's devoted to his conviction to abstain from sex until he is married. In fact he also believes against masturbation, and does not practice that either.

Maslow's theory would suggest that he can proceed no further then the base of the pyramid. That morality can only come about once his base need is met; something that is in total conflict with one another. How does self actualization preculde some of the necessaties.

How about the man that fasts. Giving up food to also self actualize. How did mother theresa go beyond safety knowing she'd taken a vow of poverty and consequently has no resources, property or possessions?

I like his ideas, but I think they are oversimplifications and have many holes. Possibly a person not trying would aachieve these in order, but the will of homo sapien can easily push these out of whack.