Talk:Maslow's hierarchy of needs/Archive 1

Is there actually a pyramid?
Looking for a little help on two issues: from where did we get this pyramid, and why do people think the needs theory is a rigid hierarchy?

Something I am noticing after finally putting aside the secondary sources is that there seems to be a lot of misinformation about Maslow's needs theory. For example, can someone show me where Maslow actually drew or referred to a pyramid? As far as I can tell, the pyramid was someone's attempt to show a statistical estimate of how the population of a third world country might fall into the "hierarchy". This is important, because at first glance, the pyramid immediately invalidates the theory as rigid steps. Focusing on the word "hierarchy" also causes a bit of a problem. Yes, Maslow (1970) uses the word, but is careful to describe the theory as a "holistic-dynamic theory" saying the "needs are organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency" (15). I can see how a pyramid might reflect "hierarchy", but why would someone use a pyramid to demonstrate "holistic", "dynamic", or "relative prepotency". The conventional wisdom about the needs theory seems to describe a rigid stepping through need states, with people not able to progress to a new level until they have met the needs of the last level. The pyramid enforces this rigidity. Those who are ticked about this rigidity have a right to whine. Rather than being a part of Maslow's theory, this rigidity seems to be a pollution of his theory through the ideological lenses of detractors or the lazy research of amateur writers. In Maslow's (1970) words:

In actual fact, most... are partially satisfied in all their basic needs and partially unsatisfied in all their basic needs at the same time. A more realistic description of the hierarchy would be in terms of decreasing percentages of satisfaction as we go up the hierarchy of prepotency. For instance, to assign arbitrary figures for the sale of illustration, it is as if the average citizen is satisfied perhaps 85% in physiological needs, 70 percent in safety needs, 50 percent in love needs, 40 percent in self-esteem needs, and 10 percent in self-actualization needs" (27-28).

So, if we are going to make up an arbitrary image to represent someone else's theory, how about if we build one that actually reflects his definition? I do not know whether this does anything to validate the theory, but representing the theory as a dynamically fluctuating bar chart would at least provide a better reflection of what Maslow described.

For those who are looking for validation of Maslow, stop looking in the postmodern academic sector. In the postmodern world, anything that smells of "Western"--particularly American--is likely to be condemned, shunned, and ignored. If none of that works, they'll throw a fit and try to get it banned. The protests in this forum seem to be a good example of this tolerance in action. You will also notice the "Western" mantra regularly parroted in texts to dismiss Maslow.

Granted, this is not likely statistical validation, but marketers and employee development professionals apply needs theory in the markets and in the workplace. Speaking of "Western"! What a concept—take those ideas that the academics reject and make money off them. Particularly of note is the VALS Framework from Stanford Research Institute. VALS builds on Maslow's Holistic Dynamic Needs Hierarchy to segment the population by values, lifestyles, needs, beliefs, dreams, and points of view. This is what marketers call segmenting by psychographics, a highly effective tool for developing products and messages that appeal to our needs. You can pretty much thank Maslow for that.

In short, please help me understand from whence came the rigid pyramid.

Thanks.

Reference

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality, 3rd ed. Addison Wesley Longman.

Brentad 10:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)brentad

Inconsistency in spelling and redirects
I am sorry, I don't know how to use wikipedia very well, but there is a problem with spelling in the article. If one types in 'self actualisation' (with an S) he gets a search page redirecting to this page; however, there is no link to the main article that comes up if one types in 'self actualization' (with a Z). This made it very difficult to find information on 'self actualization' if you come from a country where it is spelled with an S instead of a Z. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.83.146 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 30 December 2007
 * I've just tried this and both spellings end up at Self actualization--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

the NEED for an Expert: How many levels does the pyramid have??
Could an expert please review this article to clarify the PRECISE number of needs in the pyramid? There's contradictory material on the web. Most speak of 5 levels, in this wiki version, transcendence is mentioned as a 6th level(?), which is pretty confusing to me. Ohters speak of 7 levels (http://www.xenodochy.org/ex/lists/maslow.html), the first figure offered by google has 8 levels (http://www.itiadventure.com/Maslow.jpg). Maslow seems to have added something in his 1970 revision of "motivation and personality".

As far as I can tell, the pyramid has zero (0) levels. Maslow doesn't seem to have ever drawn a pyramid, and certainly doesn't seem to have described his Holistic Dynamic Needs Hierarchy as a rigid triangle. I'll give you a tip: the secondary sources seem to filter Maslow through political or ideological lenses. Others sources are simply lazy researchers who rely on other secondary sources. Still others seem to want to make the theory their own by putting their own spin on it. In short, you're not going to know unless you ask Maslow; I found him in the libray--maybe he's hanging out in yours too. Brentad 10:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)brentad

"Rather than reviewing websites which may or may not have correctly understood Maslow's work, can I suggest that we go back to his publications? This is what I have done in my referenced comment below headed 'Number of Levels'—-Zoe Ocean 02:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)"

Number of levels
Maslow's original hierarchy was published in his 1943 paper 'A Theory of Human Motivation' (see http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm). He also expounded the theory in his book Motivation and Personality, first published in 1954 (see, in particular, Chapter 2). It is clear from both these works that the hierarchy contains five levels (physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem and self-actualisation); each of these but the highest (self-actualisation) is identified as being pre-potent to (that is, takes precendence over) the next in the list, thus establishing the hierarchy.

In both works Maslow goes on to speak of 'the desires to know and to understand' and 'the aesthetic needs', however he does not attempt to place them in the hierarchy and he does not speak of pre-potency as he does with the other needs. The later work further clarifies the distinction, grouping the first five needs under the heading 'The Basic Need Hierarchy' and the last two under the heading 'The Basic Cognitive Needs'. It is thus clear that the last two needs are not part of the hierarchy. In fact, under a later heading, he refers to 'these five sets of needs—physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem, and self-actualisation' (Maslow, A. H., 1970 Motivation and Personality Third Edition, Harper Collins, New York, p. 27)—further confirming that the hierarchy contains five levels.

The confusion about additional levels seems to have been introduced by people who have read, but misunderstood, Maslow's work.

One of the external sites listed on this page—'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Xenodochy. This shows that Maslow originally published seven levels in Motivation and Personality'—is amongst those which have misunderstood Maslow's work and should, in my opinion be removed from this page.

Zoe Ocean 09:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The atonym of ...
Fight Club, and so on. Perhaps that could be mentioned somewhere?
 * What's an atonym? I found a definition, but it hardly seems to fit?

Please clarify for us less well developed intellects --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

==

Comments
"I believe that the best reference for the /rest/ of human's requirements for self-esteem and balance and genuine happiness may lie in William Glasser's work on Choice Theory... and that all five of Maslow's heirarchy may in fact belong in Glasser's first 2 human needs theory: that of Physical (food, safety, sex, sleep, etc.) and Love and Belonging, leaving three more factors unrequited: power, freedom and fun.

It is opinion, in fact, that the two (Maslow's 'actualization' and Glasser's 'power, freedom and fun') might cover the 'rest' of what drives human behaviour -- good or bad.""

I'm not sure personal opinion belongs here, but if you are going to give your personal opinion and belief, maybe you should tell us who you are... --Anon

Does anyone think that government furfills a human need? why do you think so?why so we get comfort in having some one organize most of what we do and how we live? If it doe fit into lz help me with these question i would be very grate full if you would like to reply you can email me at estefany1927@aol.com

I don't think the need for government fits into any one 'need' category. However, governments often aid people in fufilling some of these needs, whether it be physiological (welfare payments or food stamps), safety (an army to protect the people) to even esteem needs (such as humanitarian efforts that benefit a nation as a whole). It is important that any government ought to consider where the majority of its population lie in the hiearchy and plan appropriately if it wishes to remain popular. However, I do not think that Maslow's hiearchy deals with the believed need for an organized world. This is chiefly because this theory is principally concerned with the individual, rather than groups of people, which can behave very differently.

Some of the examples used are rather poor... Maria Teresa self-actualisation could have been Sainthood and the 'dark side of the human condition' is just plain vague. --CJWilly 17:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "esteem needs" section has been vandalized. I am having trouble understanding the official page which describes how to fix vandalism and warn vandals. Would someone please take a look and fix it?

Any good points about maslows theory or did he just waist his life?

Originally there were Four Levels as I recall
[Note i'm not the orignal author of the four level topic, it appears to have disappeared...] With no evidence, my understanding is that Maslow MAY have came up with what is known as the PSSP model: Personal (actualization and ego), Social, Security and Physiological. This may also be a modern simplification of the five levels. Research needed here

Acutally, originally—that is, in Maslow's 1943 work—there were five levels; see my referenced comment above headed 'Number of Levels'—-Zoe Ocean 02:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Security
Very, very well said. I too am convinced 'attitude is everything' in personal growth and development. Obviously, each indivual's road from self-centeredness to self-actualization is paved with numerous variables arising from personal experiences. Maslow openly admitted his theory was based on generalities. But just because one can not place an empirical value on his work does not negate the value of his ideas. Being open, tolerant and respectful of another's ideas toward the expansion of one's own thinking - whether you embrace the ideas or not - helps more clearly define your own. My "unscientific" theory - third4 1/23/06 While it is true that the writer, Mazlow was attempting to share with us his thoughts on the human dilemma...what can we do to survive and grow...he might not have found all of the truth. His findings are important in that they set us with a place to start thinking. Is this not one of the purposes of communication, that being supporting others in their journey. Sharing with others who are interested, what they have found.

My thought on Self-Actualization is that this is the point where we go from taking care of ourselves, to taking care of others. If this does not support us in improvement in our Self-Esteem, I cannot imagine what would do more.

"With respect, since this is an encylopaedia entry, your thoughts are not relevant: the entry should explain Maslow's thoughts.—Zoe Ocean 02:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)"

Overall, my conclusion is that adding additional levels, distracts from the power of his finding, which was powerful to me when I first introduced to his thoughts back in the 1960's and then again about 3 years ago. The first time I was at the base...I am now at the top. In reviewing what caused me to go from the bottom to the top, I was amazed that what changed was my attitude. I did not change, but my attitude did. At this point in time, I am convinced that Attitude is the most important thing affecting a person, which is very closly related to our Belief System.Ken 22:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a question does anybody belive that there are good points to malows hierarchy of needs other than it was the foundation to better theories?

Doubtful hierarchy
I am very confused by this concept of a hierarchy of desires, as it seems to be turned topsy-turvey all the time. Certainly it is impossible to argue that safety always takes precedence over love, for instance. There are numerous instances of persons sacrificing one of the lower levels for one of the higher.
 * As I understand it, the hierarchy means that you must have all the lower levels before you can acheive or develop a higher level. This doesn't prohibit sacrificing a lower level for a higher level, at least briefly. But I don't really know, so maybe I'm wrong. Cookiecaper 23:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Or, from the article, "Wabha and Bridwell (1976) found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all." Shawnc 23:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maslow himself stated that, in certain cases (a number of which he listed), the needs may be pursued out of order; but that they held true as a general rule. If you're confused, I suggest you read his work.—Zoe Ocean 02:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoe Buchanan (talk • contribs).


 * I don't think little evidence is really much of a counter arguement. Evidence to the contrary would be counter it it, but not evidence is just no arguement really. But to answer the question, a person wouldn't really be sacrificing a lower level for a higher level if you they are hungry but sacrifice their food to give to a loved one because they are at the Love/Belonging stage. The person would still be at the Love/Belonging needs because thats where they are acting from. Just because they sacrificed some food and become a bit hungry does mean they are now in the Physiological needs stage. But if you starve them for a while, maybe they would eat their loved ones. This is exactly what happens in the film Madagascar when they are stranded on an island and Marty the Lion starts seeing Marty The Zebra as a nice juicy stake. Marty is regressing to his basic animal nature and Physiological needs. Interestingly in the film, Alex the Lion managed to overcome his predatory instinct ... its a cartoon! Stevenwagner 12:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Little evidence? There is no evidence whatsoever. Has Maslow ever gathered any statistical evidence in support of his theory? I strongly doubt it since nobody seems to be either citing any evidence or criticizing it.


 * It is my read that most psychologists and even most lay people reading Maslow's hierarchy over the past 50 years understand it NOT to be a rigorous scientific theory. The vitriolic and inflammatory tenor of this comment by User 24.200.176.92 is misplaced as it seems to be based on misunderstanding.  Maslow developed and proposed his hierarchy as a framework for conceptualizing how human development and personality might take place.  He did not claim to have scientific evidence backing up a precise application of his "theory."  While he did have anecdotal data which spurred his thinking in this area, he would have been the first to admit that additional more rigorous work needed to be done.


 * Additionally, Maslow never claimed that his hierarchy was to be strictly applied. He was quite clear that one level need not be complete or totally satisfied in order to be engaged in a higher level.  Consequently, all of the "counter examples" listed below are meaningless data points against a straw-man argument being advanced by the writer.


 * A bottom line here is that Maslow's hierarchy has been a touchstone for psychological inquiry and lay understanding for over 50 years. While its simplicity and historical place may limit its direct application as years go by, it remains a conceptual foundation block on which others are still building.  J_Hunter 5:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you name a single completely unscientific wild assed guess (which is exactly what you have freely admitted Maslow's hierarchy is) over 50 years old that is still taught to students of physics, engineering, mathematics, or any other credible academic discipline? Do you see the notion of a static universe still taught to physics students? What about phlogiston and the luminiferous ether? Do you see these things? No, you do not. And do you know why? It's because most disciplines are populated by scientists concerned with the credibility of their field and so they don't pass on unscientific bullshit to students more than 50 years after some crank came up with it.


 * You miss the point entirely. Yes, it was a guess.  That is what Maslow said upfront.  The point is that there was little or no basis before that from which to work.  If you ask anyone today who knows anything (I'm a senior psychology major), they know that it was not scientific.  Maslow never claimed it was, and nor de we.  Maslow's framework isn't taught in schools today for it's correctness - don't try to imply that, and don't put words in other people's mouths.  It is taught as the initial attempt at explaining this part of human behavior.  It is taught in terms of history.  If you'd like an example of a 50 year-old incorrect hypothesis (read: guess) that is still taught in schools, then take Jean Baptiste Lamarck.  I remember my 9th grade teacher telling us both Lamarck's and Darwin's theory of evolution.*  Clearly, Lamarck was incorrect.  He is taught though, to show an example of a perfectly valid guess (read: hypothesis), based on data in hand, that is wrong.  Maslow simply noticed that in general (read: there are always exceptions to generalities) his monkey subjects had a heirarchy of needs.  We have since found a better guideline for human psychology, but that is not the point.  The point is that it was a starting place.


 * I was taught Maslow's hierarchy of needs this year in a high school class of mine. It was in such a light as to make his work seem valid, and there was no mention of its outdatedness or unscientific claims.  I was supposed to do a presentation so I said it was equivalent to Machievellian thought: destabilize/eliminate a lower level need to control people as it will eliminate the greatest # of someone's goals. 216.99.65.10 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * * if you're a creationist, then this example will have no truck with you. I can't -- and won't -- argue religion. -- Anon


 * Except that Maslow's theory wasn't a "perfectly valid guess, based on data at hand, that is wrong". Maslow's theory was ridiculous. Maslow didn't construct his theory in the Dark ages or in Classical times. Maslow constructed it in the modern age where some basic knowledge of physics and chemistry was widespread among intellectuals. And given that knowledge, given a basic understanding of how different levels of scientific explanation interact with each other (ie, too complex to be tractable) then it is obvious that Maslow's theory is utter bollocks.
 * In the exact sciences, history of the subject is presented extensively, usually to the detriment of the subject matter itself, but it never quite goes to the point of presenting theories which we know to be utterly ridiculous. 24.201.253.228 22:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When scientists do such completely ridiculous things, the whole discipline suffers for it. Yet this same anti-scientific behaviour is precisely what you're defending, which makes your position completely absurd, and you a fool and an idiot not worth the minimal respect afforded a complete stranger. Certainly, you don't seem to understand what evidence and argumentation consist of since you have advanced none whatsoever. Your claim that Maslow's hierarchy is so amorphous that it actually makes no predictions whatsoever is something you have to be some kind of idiot to consider a good defense.


 * It doesn't matter why Maslow proposed his "theory", the fact is that it is wrong. It is completely and utterly wrong. A "framework for conceptualizing how human development and personality takes place" might be useful if evidence can be found to support it. And 50 years is more than enough time for any such evidence to come to light! In contrast, your ridiculous "framework for blah blah might take place" makes it seem as if Maslow were writing an alter-history novel about some species other than homosapiens sapiens. Well, if he was it was horrible fiction and certainly shouldn't be taught to any students in the sciences. Not that you care about the preservation of the integrity of science since you're anti-science trash! 24.200.176.92 01:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and your claim that a supposedly scientific theory can survive indefinitely without a shred of evidence in its favour is ludicrous. A theory that's a half-century old and hasn't managed to amass anything in its favour has lost any credibility whatsoever. Theories are only credible so long as they're useful, or so long as they can be continuously developed with the promise that they will be useful in the future. Maslow's theory is not useful now, has never been useful and since it hasn't appreciably changed in half a century, we can be certain by now that it will never be useful, ever.

You want counter-examples? Fine.

First counter-example: in emergency situations when mothers are dehydrated and can no longer give milk, they've been known to cut themselves to feed their babies blood. That's a high level completely supplanting a lower level. If Maslow's hierarchy were strictly true, this would be impossible. If you're going to say that the mother hasn't suffered enough to have "regressed" then the whole notion turns into just so much useless psychobabble.

Second counter-example: hunger strikes.

(Higher level preserving safety)

Third counter-example: ritual fasting.

(Higher level supposedly preserving spiritual health)

Fourth counter-example: self-flaggelation.

(Socially accepted as a twist in the mind of participating individuals, who Maslow specifically did not include into the hierachy)

Fifth counter-example: religious celibacy.

(Preserving integrity for "Love/Belonging")

Sixth counter-example: aggressive people like me who are highly "self-actualized" (highly individuated in the terminology of Dabrowski's infinitely superior theory) but who don't give a good goddamn about what anyone else thinks and never have in their entire life.

(The mere fact that you said this proves that you are nothing similar to "self-actualized." Pompous is a better term in this case)

Seventh counter-example: the fact that you had to bring up a goddamn CARTOON to illustrate how Maslow's hierarchy is supposed to work. To people who are the least bit skeptical about Maslow's so-called theory, that really says it all.

(Cartoons are extreme examples of real human interactions)

Eighth counter-example: the fact that in ACTUAL examples of cannibalism (and not goddamn cartoons dreamed up by morons) the cannibals did NOT violate their psychological needs.

(They were so physically starved that they had to resort to extreme measures to satiate that need, that's all that Maslow was trying to get across in the first place)

In the case of sociopaths, the sociopaths didn't have any psychological needs to preserve the dead. If anything, they had psychological needs to eat the dead. In the case of normal people stuck in desperate situations, there are two well-known situations. There's the soccer team stuck in the Andes that ate ALREADY DEAD PEOPLE. And there's the  party that was going to San Francisco in the 1800s or so that got stuck by winter. They carefully did not violate their psychological needs by 1) eating the already dead, 2) killing the Indians then eating them, 3) making sure they were NOT eating family members, 4) making sure they did NOT know who they were eating.

(Again, sociopaths are in command of "cripple" minds, which "yield a cripple psychology and philosophy")

The theory that people regress when their more fundamental needs aren't met is a bunch of horseshit which Stevenwagner pulled out of his fat horse ass. I mean for chrissake, a CARTOON?? You were basing your ideas of human psychology on a CARTOON????

(Please Mr. Self-Actualization, must we resort to swearing?)

And do you know how long it took me to come up with each counter-example? About 20 seconds. That's how utterly crappy, how completely worthless, how delusional, how utterly counter-factual, how completely out of touch with reality that ridiculous flight of fancy that masquerades as a theory actually is.

(20 seconds to completely fail at disproving anything...that is impressive.)

There is no hierarchy

What people aren't getting is that there is no hierarchy. Love is not magically more fundamental than esteem, and esteem is not magically more fundamental than self-actualization. And I defy anyone to find definitions of esteem and belonging that will reliably differentiate between the two!

(Esteem is a belief in ONESELF, whereas belonging is belief in ONE'S BELONGING TO A GROUP...it's really a big difference.)

What there actually is is two categories. There are physiological needs, and then there are all other human needs. The ONLY difference between these two categories is that physiological needs engage physiological responses (so if you're unhealthy you'll lose your libido) that preempt other possible actions. This is not a hierarchy, two levels does not a hierarchy make. Especially since there are countless cases of people's psychological needs completely preempting their physiological needs. Say, when someone is so grief-stricken that they forego eating and drink themselves into oblivion every night. When the so-called "hierarchy" can be inverted at will, the so-called hierarchy is total bullshit.

(By jove, something that almost sounded quasi-intelligent...until you started resorting to schoolyard slang and making points that only prove that you don't understand what you are talking about, that is. The hierarchy does exist and is based on a logical order: an extremely hungry child in school is going to accomplish less effectively what a child who has satiated all physiological needs would accomplish.  A worker who feels completely unsafe in the work environment will produce less results than an employee who is entirely comfortable in the workplace.  Of course, these are generalizations.  Generalizations that don't always have to happen in the order that was set forth by Maslow.  It's just a nice way to put it down on paper.)

And finally, let me just say that Maslow's categorization scheme is completely useless and arbitrary. What deranged reasoning supports the lumping together of belonging and love, and the separation of esteem from the other two? Is it even possible to create a useful distinction between belonging and esteem? I can think of infinitely more useful categorization schemes, infinitely more sound theoretically too, than the totally arbitrary shite Maslow has come up with. But then, infinitely more is a laugh when you're comparing against a so-called theory that has literally zero value and zero theoretical soundness. 24.200.176.92 06:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...boasting superiority, resorting to name-calling and not giving a damn what others think... as unscientific as his theory may be, I don't think that's what Maslow had in mind as "self-actualized" or positive individuated growth traits.

Comment on criticism and disregard of the Hierarchy of Needs
This model is a theory. Apparently there is little scientific proof for it. Surely it shouldn't be disregarded, personally I find it a nice hueristic as it is simple and applicable. It is a model and like all models it is simplified therefore will not apply to all situations.

One such limitation is that the heirarchy appears to vary in order for different cultures. The Japanese apparently value status (ego) needs earlier for example.

Anyway this arguement really seems to be out of control. I mean sure you can argue anything, the Earth isn't round it's slightly oval! Can't we find some middle round, agree and live long happy lives?

Hmmm, all these counter examples are secular in nature. If one allows religious reasons for actions, then most of the above examples will be explained. "Greater love hath no man than to give his life for another" - Yesauh ben Joseph of the house of David also known as Jesus. Who ever ignores spiritual motivation because of science is ignoring science. People do put their lives at risk for others and the motivation is self actualization. Go out and hug a fireman; they understand. Or better yet, study their motivation if you must. It is real, it is a part of humanity, and it is very powerful.

copied discussion from /Comments subpage on original Talk page
I am troubled by the section of text that claims the body will not show signs of a deficiency in the first four levels. The text includes the survival needs. How does the body not show the effects of a deficiency in survival needs?

I think this is a mistake in the text


 * This article has changed into more of an extension of Maslow's work. In particular the diagram provided radically extends Maslow's original and in doing so does his heirarchy a considerable dis-service. The article should be edited to be true to the subject rather than to convey the writer's personal understandings and philosophies. LookingGlass (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Maslow's Hierarchy "has largely been supplanted by attachment theory in graduate and clinical psychology and psychiatry" seems to be far too broad. Attachment theory does not attempt to provide a window into the needs of mature, successful adults. Which is not to say that Maslow's is valid; simply that it addresses developmental stages that are not addressed by attachment theory, making it impossible for attachment theory to replace or supplant it. They are apples and oranges.

''Note: This section was copied from a subpage of the original Talk page (link in the header), if you want to see the full history/attribution follow that link. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)''

psychological vs physiological ?
hi, I suppose such needs, as food, sleep, warmth, (and in some periods of life - sex) are ment to be physiological needs - they are based on hunger/lack_of feeling. and safety, is more of psychological need.

I would agree. Maslow's pyramid is largely occupied by desires, not true needs. One can be locked in a cage, naked, alone and deprived of everything but water, food, air and a place to drop waste and one can live out a life - though a horrible one. 207.112.45.19 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions
Especially in a section headed "Criticism," as here, I'd like to see references for statements such as: "Maslow's theory may be regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality..." Maslow's theory is just that. I don't believe there is anything approaching universal agreement that it is "an improvement" -- or, as the author does mention, that it is even widely considered to be useful. Passive-mode editorializing of the form "x may be regarded as" has no place in a professional encyclopedia unless the writer is a "recognized authority" (and even then, but let's not get into impossibly thorny postmodern arguments about the legitimacy of "professional" knowledge). As there are few topics on which there is "anything approaching universal agreement" (whether because human beings are simply perverse, or because it keeps life interesting), it would be good to cite sources or evidence of some kind for such blanket assessments. --Clocke 04:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section
This section contains assertions that are not attributed to anyoone in particular and read like someone's opinion on the matter (my highlights):
 * While Maslow's theory may be regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality and motivation, concepts like self-actualization are vague. This becomes problematic to operationalize and test Maslow's theory. There is no proof that every individual has the capacity for self-actualization. Additionally, in their extensive review of research that is dependent on Maslow's theory, Wabha and Bridwell (1976) found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all. (It should be noted that Maslow himself documented and explored various paradoxes and subtleties in relation to his theory.)


 * Some people feel that the theory and its concepts have been overused. For instance, references to the theory occur in many undergraduate organizational behavior textbooks without any explication of the subtleties of the theory or any acknowledgement of its possible flaws. The word self-actualization is sometimes regarded as psycho-babble.

We need references for these assertions.

--Janice Rowe

Well, the latter is a simple fact. Maslow's theory has been taught to gullible business students despite it not having a skerrit of evidence supporting it. The same for behaviourism, which no serious psychologist believes in anymore.

Why the hell is Behaviourist criticism of Maslow's hierarchy on the page? That's like writing up a Calvinist response to Biblical Creationism! Both of them are discredited psychobabble.

If you want an actually credible theory of personality development, look at Dabrowki's Theory of Positive Disintegration. It seems to make sense even after thorough review, whereas Maslow's hierarchy doesn't make any sense even at first glance. When you can think of a counter-example in 5 seconds flat, you know the theory is doomed.

Also, Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration, which is incompatible with Maslow's hierarchy, supports the notion that not everyone has the capacity to become a mature personality. So there's your reference right there. In Dabrowski's theory, > 80% of people are born, live their lives, and die on the unilevel, Level 1. And not just that but there's some evidence that even an intensive targeted intervention couldn't get these people past Level 1; they just don't have the capacity.

Furthermore, unlike Maslow's vague "self-actualization" psychobabblic nonsense, Dabrowski provides extremely well-defined criteria for the Level 5 (integrated multilevel) personality. It has a very narrowly defined meaning and it's possible to measure and test it to the extent anything can be tested in psychology.

In Dabrowski's theory, you HAVE TO have gone through level 4 in order to be at level 5, and you HAVE TO have gone through level 3 in order to have gone through level 4. Each of these levels is narrowly defined and so the definition of level 5 is the most narrowly defined of them all. Level 5 means "you meet all of these criteria and prior to this you met all of the criteria of level 4 and prior to this you met all of the criteria of level 3 and so on".

In contrast, there's nothing stopping a starving person to self-actualize in Maslow's theory. That's a big red flag with the word CRAP written all over it.

Of course, Maslow was an American working in the USA whereas Dabrowski was a Pole working in the Communist East Bloc. That pretty much explains the popularity of one and the obscurity of the other. It's not like the USA didn't intend to preserve its cultural hegemony over the western hemisphere, nosiree bob! 24.200.176.92 05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Long term vandalism
It seems, even with constant reverts to the page, some of the vandal material has slipped into the "original" version. I re-added the reference section, deleted sentences which pass on first glance for valid material, but are garbage (and vandal) upon closer inspection, as well various edits which are NOT up to the standard required for a Wikipedia article. As well, I have noticed the vanadals are all using anonymous names (ie. IP address), and even those who "correct" the vanadalism made do so in such a way that it is replaced with very poor editing. Hence, I believe ALL changes should be reverted if done by an anonymous user as it has become difficult to tell which are to true reverts, and which are vanadalism posing as reverts. --KaiSeun 06:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can kindly be more descriptive about what it is that you judge as vandalism? It seems to me the current shape of this article is over run with secularism which misrepresents Maslows views. Peak experiences were not mentioned at even though it was a key concept of his. - Stevenwagner 10:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, a review of the edit history shows various questionable anonymous edits, for example this one, from 11 november, which is a crappy edit that was never reverted. (I did reverted major vandalism today). linas 03:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Absence of higher pyramid levels
A quick reading of the bottom three "Maslow" links reveals quite a discrepancy in the number of levels of the pyramid. For example, This site lists seven levels, This site lists eight levels, while this article lists five and the author adds a sixth.

An attempt should be made to review Maslow's original text, decide which levels he actually espoused, and stick to those. After all, it's his theory of needs, not ours. I see that six levels are actually discussed, but only 5 are on the diagram. The pyramid should reflect the article, and the article should reflect the original work. Once that is done (by either adding or removing levels, I'm not an expert), then perhaps the incorrect links should either be removed or warned about.


 * Agreed, but I do think I read somewhere though that Maslow actually augmented his theory over time, which would explain the discrepancies. This article, obviously, should reflect his most recent version. If I find more time, I will endeavor to do the updating.


 * Agreed; and I have done exactly that: see my referenced comment above headed 'Number of Levels'; but I have not followed through with actually editing the article.—-Zoe Ocean 02:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoe Buchanan (talk • contribs).


 * I think the top most level that's missing is called "Transcendence", but as I'm not sure if he added it, or if it was added later based on his notes, I'm not inclined to try and add it myself. I think his wife may have added it after his death based on notes and conversations. At the very least it probably would warrant a mention. Tonerman (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What the hell do needs have to do with personality development stages??
The basic assumption behind Maslow's hierarchy of needs is the idea that there is some kind of a correspondence between stages of personality development and fundamental human needs. This is oversimplistic nonsense. No, it's worse than that, it's totally delusional absurdity.

WHY is it nonsense?

It's nonsense because if it were TRUE, it would be an exceedingly unlikely and surprising arrangement. It would be like finding out that solar systems only occur around stars like our sun, and they all have between 4-10 planets.

In science, if you're going to make a fantastically unlikely statement about how the universe is arranged, you have to do either one of two things. Number one, you provide evidence that the universe actually is arranged that way. Number two, you provide argumentation to make a plausible case that given what we know about the universe, it should actually be arranged that way. IOW, you either prove the unexpected statement is an empirical fact, or you show that it's a derivation from other things which are known to be facts (ie, you make a prediction).

Is Maslow's hypothesis of distinct human needs at different stages supported by any kind of argumentation, any kind of argumentation AT ALL? No, no it is not. It's supported by endless repetition by and for morons ^H business students.

Is Maslow's hypothesis of distinct human needs at different stages supported by any kind of empirical evidence, any evidence AT ALL? No, no it is not. It's supported by horseshit and elbow grease.

Maslow's theory passes for a fact but in actuality it is complete crap.

Maslow's theory contains a completely fantastical and unlikely idea as an assumption, an assumption which is never checked against reality.

The correspondence between stages and human needs which Maslow's theory rests on does not exist in reality. It is FALSE.

To actually demonstrate that this is the case, you have to pretty much butcher Maslow's theory, but the demonstration is entirely reasonable and straightforward.

You start by asking "what the hell is self-actualization"? Well, as Maslow fails to define it, it's a completely useless concept. So you switch to "individuation" which at least is well-defined. You then ask yourself if "individuation" is a fundamental human need. And no, no it is not. And not for the reason that most people are rabid thoughtless conformists. Rather, individuation isn't a fundamental human need for the prosaic reason that it's too complex a concept. It's not fundamental enough. It's not fundamental because it can be broken down into tiny little itty bitty component pieces. And some of those itty bitty component pieces are themselves fundamental human needs. An atom can't be made up of other atoms, that's just nonsense.

So we ask ourselves, what the hell are fundamental human needs? Well, we can certainly give some examples.


 * sex
 * health
 * existence
 * locomotion
 * attention

and we can go on. The point here is that none of these things can be theoretically built up from others. You can't create locomotion from attention. You can't create health from sex. In the real world, these things all interact in very complex ways, but in the concept world they are completely distinct and separate, completely independent of each other.

Now, those are fundamental human needs. And if you think about the subject for a couple hours, you'll come up with at least a dozen of them. And none of them are any more fundamental than any other. Sure, people die without nutrition. But then again, babies die without attention too, even if they have nutrition. Specifically, babies die if they're not touched, the experiment was actually run to prove this.

Okay, so we've got fundamental human needs. And we've got lots more and better ones than Maslow ever identified. Is this good enough? Hardly. Because now you want to try to describe an actual human being. And what you find out is that each of these fundamental human needs interacts with other fundamental human needs and with objects in the real world and with completely other things in order to create a whole galaxy of derived needs. For instance, "expertise" is knowledge (a fundamental human need) mixed with attention (another fundamental human need). You get a whole bunch of them that way.

Okay, now that we've got a whole galaxy of human needs, we ask ourselves what the hell are stages of development. And we're asking this question without having any preconceptions about how the human mind actually works. All we know is that there are these fundamental human needs and they combine in lots of chaotic ways. Okay, so at each stage of development, a person will be trying to satisfy a few hundred of these human needs. Do you see where I'm going?

The thing is, when you've got a few hundred atoms, or a few hundred things any kind of things really, you've got higher level phenomena occuring. You've got transcendental properties shaking out of the low level properties. So in the case of atoms which have properties like number of electrons, vibration modes, kinetic energy and all sorts of other crap ... well, once you have several hundred atoms together they start having PHASES. As in PHASES OF MATTER. So you've got a GASEOUS PHASE and a LIQUID PHASE and a SOLID PHASE and a PLASMA PHASE. And you'll note that these are the same atoms and, here's the really important thing; high level properties have nothing to do with low level properties. This is basic systems theory.

So now we ask ourselves, what the hell does a stage of personality development which has hundreds of different needs interacting together and being satisfied, have to do with any one or two of those particular needs?

I mean, what the hell does the gaseous phase of matter have to do with what kind of atom the matter is made of? Answer: damned little. At 3000K pretty much all matter is gaseous. At 1K pretty much all matter is solid. At 300K there's a whole bunch of substances that are gaseous and another whole bunch that are solid.

The point is that Maslow's hierarchy is doing the equivalent of stating that the elements with atomic weight 100+ only occur in a solid state, and the ones with atomic weight 50+ only ever occur in a liquid or solid state. This is ridiculous. It suggests an extremely high degree of organization and you can't simply assume or wave your magic wand around or just claim that such an extremely high degree of organization exists. You have to PROVE IT.

And actually, Maslow's hierarchy does MORE than this. It not only claims that low-level human needs are highly organized within high-level stages (the arrogance necessary to claim this without looking at actual evidence is truly fantastical) it claims that the properties of these high-level stages are exactly like the properties of the low-level human needs.

What that means is that Maslow's hierarchy is doing the equivalent of claiming that all substances made of atoms with atomic weight 50+ weigh more than substances with atoms 10-. So Radon would weigh more than Lithium. Note that this is completely false since high-level properties of substances have nothing whatsoever to do with low-level properties of elements. And the important thing is that on its face any such claim is a truly fantastical statement to make.

Maslow's theory not only makes these utterly fantastic statements about how human needs => personality are organized but it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prove them. And that's why Maslow's theory is a bunch of horseshit believed only by idiots ^W business students who only believe in it because they're used to being fed horseshit.

Maslow's theory is not credible and highly unscientific. And anyone who defends it must do so on actively anti-scientific grounds.

Note that Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration (an infinitely superior theory since it actually posits clear mechanisms for movement from stage to stage) says nothing about human needs. It talks about stages, period.

Maslow's theory is about as credible as Blumenbach's racial theory. Actually, it's less credible since it's got less evidence and research going for it. And at least we can see something that looks like races even if it's superficial whereas Maslow's stages are complete nonsense invented out of thin air.


 * Wikipedia is not the place to attack ideas. It is a place to describe established ideas. If you need to tear this down, write an article on a blog, and submit it to some journal for publication. Then you can make note of that here. linas 14:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, fool, last I checked, wikipedia's NPOV policy doesn't mean that an article has to be gung-ho about a junk idea that's been roundly discredited in its own field. Nobody seriously interested in normative psychology believes in Maslow's hierarchy. The very best that can be said about it is that,


 * "this sounds true for a member of the consumerist culture prevalent in the USA. However, the claim is not true, and even sounds ridiculous, for those coming from traditional Eastern philosophy."


 * as for my own argumentation, it doesn't constitute "new work", it's just a simple observation of the most basic and common-sensical notions in science. Now stop this impertinence and try to learn something. Like the fact that Maslow's theory is not Wrong but Ridiculous and so anyone working on this article ought to realign their objectives from defending the theory to finding criticism for it. 24.201.253.228 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I like you. Do as linas says: get this somewhere it'll be wider read. Then provide an external link, if that's allowed.

''Provide the forum and I'll do it. This entire line of argumentation that you seem so impressed by is the work of a couple hours of play. I think up these sorts of arguments as a matter of course, every day, in my off time, so I'm not too inclined to invest a lot of time into any particular one of them.'' 24.201.253.228 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

...Awsome --DanielCD 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I must confess that I want to remove the Maslows's hierarchy theory altogether in the entry. For instance, a serious entry on gravity should not include the Aristotelian autotelic view of objects loving Mother Earth, regardless of the historic notion that it was probably active for longer time than the Newtonian theory. However, as a PhD in Psychology with motivation as a specialty, my strategy is to ignore it. Problem is, the theory is so appealing for a lot of people, that they forget about the scientists. In my thesis, I simply omitted writing anything about Maslow, McGregor's X and Y and not to mention (pun unintended) the Freuding subconscious motivation ideas because I didn't think they qualify in a scientific text. Furthermore, though I am certainly capable of writing a scientific text on why Maslow's theory is faulty, I doubt that any other researcher in the field is interested in publishing it because it is such common knowledge. That would be kicking a dead horse. So, defenders of the keeping the theory here, would it be okay with you to remove it just because PhD theses on motivation without mentioning this theory is approved? Clebo 14:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Uh, I forgot two more reasons to omit it. First, a Norman paraphrase. When an academic idea is attacked, there are three things to do with increased difficulty. First, you can hide it behind confusing explanations and babble. That's easy. Second, you can try to "fix it" by changing it into something useful. That's hard. Third, and the hardest of them all, is to accept that your idea does not work and should be scrapped altogether. The second reason for omitting Maslow (along with X and Y in my opinion) is space. Motivational psychology has a large number of theories, some of which are actually empirically grounded. We should not waste precious space on poor theories because this entry must choose between sound theories in terms of space. Clebo 14:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Marxist section
I removed the following section:
 * Another counter-position takes the view that Maslow's theory is essentially Marxist. The basic precept that the highest form of personal attainment involves progressing beyond materialism can be interpreted as lending Marx's notion of historical materialism a psychological defence. For those who believe Marx to be not only wrong but also thoroughly discredited (following a hundred years or so of unnecessary bloodshed), this observation that Maslow's model mirrors Marx's (and may indeed have been influenced by it) is grounds for suggesting that perhaps Maslow should be similarly consigned to history's rubbish tip.

I agree that there are similarities between Maslow and Marx, but I don't think this is a common viewpoint. I've looked for articles discussing their relationship and haven't found any. If someone can supply a ref, that'd be great. Even then, to say this discredits Maslow is illogical and POV. Yes, much of what Marx said has been discredited by history. However, that doesn't mean that everything he said is wrong.--Bkwillwm 19:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree entirely with that analysis and argue the opposite - that Maslow's theory is the picture of a typical Male, high flying capitalist, and that it gives a very accurate picture of the ordering of *his* needs, but does not give an account of what it is to be truly poor, nor what it is to live *within a society*. Not everyone aspires to "self-actualisation", to experience "purpose" and "meaning" through the realisation of their "inner potential". Many people place far more meaning on the third run in the ladder, and don't want let alone *need* a lot of what the fourth rung has to offer for happiness. It is perhaps here that the Feminist would join in the Marxists in critiquing Maslow. As well as those who just don't want to (or can't) be a rich high flying capitalist, the pyramid just doesn't capture the way women experience the world. Wireless99 12:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)