Talk:Maslow's hierarchy of needs/Archive 4

Sex in lower part of pyramid
noone ever died from not having sex and I dont understand the emphasis ppl here place on the continued survival of humanity, if we all disappeared tomorow I dont think it would be such a bad thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.74.28 (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of obvious that the pyramid doesn't need sex at the bottom with water and breathing, and I don't see it in the source either... 72.159.71.131 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, it is a primal need. It does not refer to sexual intimacy (a specific partner with the necessary intimacy to express their sexual life) but the raw need per se.Zisimos (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sex is not a primary need, if you are not having it you stay alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.249.211.172 (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * People don't generally die from lack of sleep (also on the base, physiological level), but they do go crazy without it. Same goes for sex. --Davecampbell (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Maslow's Hierarchy, the content of the heirarchy has already been determined. 65.117.142.249 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, whoever determined it didn't bother using the source they cited at all. Oh well, this is Wikipedia; I suppose it's more important to go fight about Burma or something. - 72.159.71.131 (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Although it has already been determined, I think its there because if humans didn't procreate, we would cease to exist. Therefore it is a primal need of the species. Things that the species must do, individuals should do, even though they do not have to. (216.70.134.34 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

I was actually a little surprised to see sex in listed in the most basic of human needs then I realized that it actually does fit. While it's true that people won't die from not having sex, lack of sex does tend to make a person go crazy. One only has to look at prisoners and Catholic priests to see that the sex desire is something that needs to find an outlet. Why else would you have STRAIGHT men having sex with each other? Wow, I bet that all prison rapes and child abuse by the clergy cases would go away if the men were able to have sex with women. Maxtro (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Prison rapes aren't just about sex. They are about the social pecking order and dominance. Maslow might set them under a metapathology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derflord32 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I perceive sex within this context to refer to sexual processes (i.e. menstruation, puberty, etc.). Humans need to perform these functions in order to procreate and grow, however in some cultures these are considered taboo and are stunted or stopped indefinitely leading to permanent damage or even death. That is why sex is considered one of the most basic of needs. Xcronodogx (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sex is not an individual need. It is, however, necessary for the survival of the species and that was likely to be Maslow's justification for including it. I think the inclusion is flawed since the hierarchy is supposed to reflect individual development.. But I am not Maslow, and Maslow did include sex as a physiological need, and therefore it is included in the article. If you can find peer-reviewed criticisms of the inclusion, you are of course welcome to note these in the article.

To end debates, we need to clearly quote Maslow on the content. Whatever people believe, sex as a basic need is up to Maslow himself, and none of the sources are quite reliable. Also, humans need light to survive. However, light is less fantasized about than sex on the internet, of course. -79.81.21.156 (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just like food and water, sex is a primary motivator so it makes sense that it is in the lower part of the pyramid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.234.11 (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

POV
It concerns me that especially in the Self-Actualization part of this article, it's not clear that the article is restricting itself to describing Maslow's theory, as opposed to interpolating some of the author's own opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.113.40 (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article has changed into more of an extension of Maslow's work. In particular the diagram provided radically extends Maslow's original constructs 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) 18:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope it's right now however, since i'm basing a part of my AS coursework on the self-actualisation part of the article. 81.140.28.233 (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs as a structure for human relations
This post is just stating the obvious, but we can understand Abraham Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs' as a priority structure for human relations and communications. When we are engaging each other in human society and dialogues, the observing of human priorities is an important concept found in all 'indigenous' (Latin = 'self-generating') societies. "Have you eaten?" is an old Chinese greeting based on confirming the basic human relations practice of concern for human priorities or basics. Without this hierarchy of needs we would cease to exist. The video game addict who forgets to eat long enough, or the gambling addict wearing a diaper so he or she can continue to feed a hungry slot machine all exemplify mispriorities of need.

If you are hungry, I will not waste words about other less important subjects. Maslow structured needs so that we can relate to each other with due regard. In this sense those physiological (air, water, food, (shelter, clothing), warmth, & health) needs at the bottom of the pyramid are adressed first and provide a foundation upon which other needs rest.

The colonial 'exogenous' (Latin = 'other-generated') societies to which we belong and have attempted to restructure the world to, are based in 'taking' often in hidden structures not obvious to those who live by these imperial systems. Trade agreements struck with 3rd world elite for example may have stewards of orchard forest productivity driven into squatter camps from their now occupied (mining, export monocultures, logging and other resource extractive economies) working for pennies per hour and exporting to countries where tens of dollars per hour are the norm. This human injustice is hidden to the coffee addict simply wanting to fullfill a false but seemingly pressing physiological need. In exogenous societies we become confused by social and economic status as to who matters and who supposedly doesn't, yet we are all part of the same human structure with physiological needs coming first.

Maslow posed the enlightened human who is concerned about human relations in the common acts and things of our social lives as an ideal to which we can all strive to become. Humans are after all social-creatures who live inter-dependently with billions of simultaneously interacting humans world wide. It is essential that Maslow addresses this 'existance' element missing from much of psychology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Jack (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Evolution and Cognition
Actually, to all the Maslow-bashers, Maslow's heirarchy makes sense in both a cognitive and evolutionary framework. Further, the basic saftey needs are physiologically regulated by the brain stem, the oldest part of the human brain. The self-actualization is done by the neo-cortex, the newest brain structure. Emotional needs are handled by the limbic system, which is the paeloemamilian, social needs and belongingness by the brain structures we share with non-human primates.

From a cognitive perspective, love and relationships are pretty much irrelevant if you are starving to death - by measures beyond the individuals control. A hunger strike is violating a physiological need, yes, but it is volitional. It is the neo-cortex overriding the rest of the brain - for a short duration.
 * Wikipedia is not a forum. If you want to add this to the article, however, find a source and do it yourself. 128.120.173.59 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons with Taoism and with Zen Buddhism
I think this shows why there is criticism of this article. Why is this here? The article is is about a simple single component of Humanist theory that is best expressed in a diagram, and not religion.--John Bessa (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Zen and Taoism are to remove the needs of feeling. And only to take what is needed. This does not apply to this theory - Connor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.92.205 (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Use in political science
The article might benefit from some mention of how Maslow's pyramid has been used in discussions of political issues such as the development of human rights (I'm thinking specifically in the People's Republic of China, but I'm sure there are other examples). These [rather old] papers seem to have some mention of it: r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Davies (1991). "Maslow and the theory of political development". Political Psychology 12(3).
 * Nevis (1983). "Using an American perspective in understanding another culture: toward a heirarchy of needs for the People's Republic of China". Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 19(3).

The real problem is if you read the original writings of the hierarchy of need they are read from the bottom up and sex was one of them not the presentation before us. What a crock of systematic sterilization of ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.123.21 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone keeps removing various physiological needs. Since Maslow's hierarchy is definite, such removal amounts to vandalism. It really compromises Wikipedia's credibility. Added a protect request to protection page. We'll see if this page gets the protection it needs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.222.157 (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't vandalism - it was just that the source cited for that section didn't mention sex, and the definition immediately before the list would not include it. Although the hierarchy is definite, the lists or descriptions of each level are not - and according to Maslow, "it seems impossible as well as useless to make any list of fundamental physiological needs". Peter E. James (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Morality
As it exists right now, the pyramid graphic lists morality twice. Once as a safety / security need, and once as a self-actualization need. This is not wrong; please don't change the graphic. The text simply does not explain the difference. I understand morality as a security need in the context where one needs to learn from an external and begin to model within their thoughts, morality; and as a self-actualization need in the context of a need to teach/work to incorporate into one's actions, morality. I, however, cannot source myself in the article; nor do I currently have the time to properly source this. 66.150.46.254 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sex as a physiological need?
(Disclaimer: from a European perspective, Maslow's hierarchy seems rather pseudoscientific, and certainly not particularly useful as far as modern psychology goes. Why is it a pyramid? Why does the top tier of the pyramid cover more area than the one below? What's with the colours?)

What's with the inclusion of "sex" as a "physiological need" in both the diagram and the text? The reference at doesn't list it, but talks only of oxygen, food, water, and temperature—withdrawal of oxygen or acceptable temperatures causes death within minutes, withdrawal of water or sleep (not listed) causes death within days, withdrawal of food causes death within weeks.

Lack of "sex" doesn't kill, certainly not as easily as the altered mental state of prisoners kept in total isolation can.

We have "sex" and "sexual intimacy" in two categories, and "morality" in two categories as well, in the image.

I don't think we can do more here than repeat what Maslow said, because it simply isn't that amazing, or indeed consistent.

92.116.139.140 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sex was mentioned in as a physiological need in Maslow's paper but is often omitted in other references; what is probably misleading is the definition of physiological needs in this article, as it wasn't originally restricted to those that are necessary for survival. Peter E. James (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider: Eliminate sex from all people's lives except those that are self-actualized. Now, alter the environment so that none may self-actualize. I think if you do that, you will understand that sex, as a function of procreation, is a physiological imperative.96.24.93.114 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * as per the bibliography from the main article: from AH Maslow, Motivation and Personality, copyright 1954, 3rd edition, page 21, 2nd paragraph of the page, the last paragraph of the section on "The Belongingness and Love Needs", which starts on page 20. (my local library acquired a copy for me):

"One thing that must be stressed at this point is that love is not synonymous with sex. Sex may be studied as a purely physiological need, although ordinarily human sexual behavior is multidetermined [sp]. That is to say, it is determined not only by sexual but also by other needs, chief among which are the love and affection needs."

Maslow's not an idiot. he knows that the modern colloquialism of love=sex is invalid. He also doesn't use the words "sexual intimacy" together. While he uses the word "intimacy" (p20,3rd paragraph), it is situated between the words "contact" and "belongingness". I don't have any idea who put the words "sexual intimacy" together, but Maslow himself only ever stated that sexuality is one possibility. This begins, I believe, to really get at the argument most seem to have in mind (at least the one my wife and I frequently have).

To delve into Maslow's homosexual mother perspective on the argument that it is a way of life not a choice, one must go into another man and go to the first anus on page 21: [in reference the taco is about the size of one:]"In our society the thwarting of these needs is the most commonly found core in cases of maladjustment and more severe pathology. Love and affection, as well as their possible expression in sexuality, are generally looked upon with ambivalence and are customarily hedged about with many restrictions and inhibitions. Practically all theorists of psychopathology [he cites no reference] have stressed thwarting of the love needs as basic in the picture of maladjustment". he does not refer to the thwarting of sexual advances on the physiological level, but of love needs. He does refer to one study, "Suttie, 1935, 'taboo on tenderness'". (currently, I have won the argument with my wife, but only because I have not shared this last bit with her).

also, regarding the "european perspective disclaimer" above: I have read the book, hold it in my hands before and after writing this, and can readily examine it's pages. There is no triangle in here, even on the covers. That is someone else's work. Further, the triangle on the article, as of my writing, has very close to the correct labels on the left side, but the text inside is at least partially a fabrication; not Maslow's actual work, and not really an accurate representation of it. It's pseudoscience, alright; but not Maslow's. That having been said, there was another triangle on here before this one, with no colors. It was lousy. This one is an okay representation of the material, and can be made into a very good interpretation of it. I support keeping it.

Finally, the verbiage on the labels at the different levels of "The Basic Need Hierarchy"(as he really calls it) are (from the same book, pages 15 to 22, quoting just the relevant subdivision titles within chapter 2): "The Physiological Needs", "The Safety Needs", "The Belongingness and Love Needs", "The Esteem Needs", and "The Self-actualization Need [need, singular]". Items all included in chapter 2, "A Theory of Human Motivation", yet sadly missing from this article as they deeply aid understanding the subject matter include the preconditions of basic needs, the basic cognitive needs, aesthetic needs, and the characteristics of the basic needs, especially as this last part includes exceptions to the hierarchy, and knowing a topic's exceptions helps define it.96.24.93.114 (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Maslow's Hierarchy and the Modern Sustainability Movement
Applying Maslow’s hierarchy to the modern sustainability movement may help advance awareness. The second tier of the hierarchy, safety, connects to sustainability. When a more global perspective of safety is created, when one is progressing between the second and third tier, sustainability can be applied. As this happens, the safety of the surrounding environment is made aware to the individual. As this happens, when the lens is then widened to its greatest, sustainability can be appreciated. Yet, the sustainability movement is based in the fourth level. The sustainability movement tries to apply social psychology and Maslow’s hierarchy to accomplish its goals. The sustainability movement hopes that it can change social norms so that way esteem can be based on what people can do to minimize their environmental impact. One example of this, was the original push to recycle. This was one of the first steps of the sustainability and environmental awareness groups took toward helping the environment. As the green recycling bins became more well known around the country, it became increasingly “normal” for people to recycle, and the recycling movement became the social norm for the public. This can be further applied to modern social norms and the environmental movement as the push to use higher MPG (miles per gallon) cars has become more well known. The “Prius” as well as other cars have become marks of esteem and wealth because of their ability to be high MPG cars shows that people can not only take care of themselves but the environment as well. The current sustainability movement is focused on low energy, and low carbon footprint goods. The epitome of this movement is looking at energy efficient light bulbs and other forms of common household goods. In improving what everybody uses, it changes some of the hierarchy as well from the fourth tier to the second tier, and part of the safety and basic necessities of the home.

23:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Bry G (talk)== Maslow's Hierarchy and the Modern Sustainability Movement ==

Applying Maslow’s hierarchy to the modern sustainability movement may help advance awareness. The second tier of the hierarchy, safety, connects to sustainability. When a more global perspective of safety is created, when one is progressing between the second and third tier, sustainability can be applied. As this happens, the safety of the surrounding environment is made aware to the individual. As this happens, when the lens is then widened to its greatest, sustainability can be appreciated. Yet, the sustainability movement is based in the fourth level. The sustainability movement tries to apply social psychology and Maslow’s hierarchy to accomplish its goals. The sustainability movement hopes that it can change social norms so that way esteem can be based on what people can do to minimize their environmental impact. One example of this, was the original push to recycle. This was one of the first steps of the sustainability and environmental awareness groups took toward helping the environment. As the green recycling bins became more well known around the country, it became increasingly “normal” for people to recycle, and the recycling movement became the social norm for the public. This can be further applied to modern social norms and the environmental movement as the push to use higher MPG (miles per gallon) cars has become more well known. The “Prius” as well as other cars have become marks of esteem and wealth because of their ability to be high MPG cars shows that people can not only take care of themselves but the environment as well. The current sustainability movement is focused on low energy, and low carbon footprint goods. The epitome of this movement is looking at energy efficient light bulbs and other forms of common household goods. In improving what everybody uses, it changes some of the hierarchy as well from the fourth tier to the second tier, and part of the safety and basic necessities of the home.

Secondary sources and misinterpretation of Maslow
In reality there are (at least) two versions of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

There is the culturally popular version, based around that pyramid, and there are the versions that Maslow himself described.

Nowhere in Maslow's original writings does that pyramid appear. The pyramid was introduced by others attempting to explain Maslow's ideas. It's entirely based on secondary sources.

The version we've all been taught bears little, if any relationship to the ideas Maslow himself was attempting to teach.

Most of the criticisms of Maslow are actually criticisms of the highly mechanical and schematised version of his theories represented by that pyramid.

The article does well in describing the popular understanding of Maslow's hierarchy - which is now an entity existing in it's own right in countless publications. It does not do well in describing Maslow's own ideas about the hi erarchy, or in showing that there are fundamental differences between how the hierarchy is commonly understood and taught, and how Maslow himself explained the concept. Lots of work needed here! River sider ( talk ) 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Validity of the criticisms
Perhaps I am misunderstanding them, but several of the noted criticisms take a top down view of the pyramid, when it is, well, a pyramid- the bottom levels are the most important. Accordingly they criticize it for an individualist perspective when things one might consider individual are not present until the 4th and 5th steps- the least important, NOT the apex. Our need to belong comes before them, fitting with collectivism. As for sex, it shows up twice- on the bottom rung as an essential task for perpetuating ones genes, and on the third level wrapped up in intimacy. This seems to negate that argument. Am I misinterpreting this? (Note that I am addressing the popular view of the hierarchy, not whatever may truly be the case or what Maslow himself presented.) Westrim (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * no, sex is not always sex. To expand my comment above, sex can be for procreation, the cathartic release of stress, or as an expression of emotion. As for where it fits in the hierarchy, well, obviously, that depends upon one's motivation. A "top-down" view of the triangle leading to mis-understanding is tragic, but typically only happens when one tries to understand it without really paying attention.96.24.93.114 (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason this is (that they take a top down view of the pyramid) is that intense stress and emotional trauma combined with ritualistic practices (such that are found in Western Religion) can trigger a release of dopamine that will cause feelings of euphoria. I wrote a paper on the antithesis of Maslow's basic tenant and came across this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username3000a (talk • contribs) 07:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that makes no sense. I think many people are misunderstanding Maslow's THEORY. But just like the Bible, after years of people's interpretations, we've diluted the real meaning. People who work with kids can fully explain it through personal experience — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.244.254 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Maslow's theory, uninterpreted, is about a small percentage of the population. It is also not gender specific, or culturally biased. Yet, much of what is here is. Time to talk to my local library about a copy of his book. 96.24.93.114 (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Chilean economist and philosopher Manfred Max-Neef has also argued fundamental human needs are non-hierarchical, and are ontologically universal and invariant in nature—part of the condition of being human; poverty, he argues, may result from any one of these needs being frustrated, denied or unfulfilled.[citation needed]" <- seems like advertising specially without a citation, should be removed in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.168.207 (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Douglas T. Kenrick's criticism and rebuilding of the pyramid (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201005/rebuilding-maslow-s-pyramid-evolutionary-foundation -Ref. note 20) is invalid because it is based on a limited heterosexual reproductive perspective and excludes the needs of a significant portion of the human population (homosexuals, as well as those who consciously choose not to procreate). This is why an individualist approach is the only rational approach to the subject, any other approach will lead to the exclusion of segments of the population in being considered within the model.

Hello Wikipedia folks. For a class assignment, we are required to add to a wiki article about learning theories. To that end I will be adding the following tidbit of sourced info to this article. It seems to fit into the topic of validity of the theory.

Sex is not generally listed as part of physiological needs, but it was listed in Maslow's paper. GotHoai (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"What is most important about Maslow's work is its recognition of a need to order, or scale, human needs and its recognition of human activity as an important area ripe for the application of sophisticated psychology theories and techniques that are today dubbed "management studies" among other rubrics. (Udechukwu, 2009 p. 69) Udechukwu, I. (2009). Correctional officer turnover: of Maslow's needs hierarchy and Herzberg's motivation theory . Public Personnel Management, 38(2), 69."

I would love any comments about this posting as this is supposed to be a learning experience. Thanks guys Mcgrupp024 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add the following statement to the criticism section of this page.

"Maslow’s theory has often been criticized for its lack of empirical support and imprecision. This is due to the relevant difficulty in testing this kind of theory. The little amount of research that has been conducted to test the theory to date indicates, at best, only partial support, though none of these studies is free from serious methodological flaws. (Adler, 1977) Adler, S. (1977). Maslow's Need Hierarchy and the Adjustment of Immigrants. International Migration Review, Vol. 11, No. 4 , 444-451."

I would like to hear any feedback regarding this posting. Thanks Deesejc (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

self-actualization is growth needs?
I would like to add the sentence, If religion or the belief of is such an important part of self-actualization, then can spirituality be added as a new section to the pyramid.Chemstar8 17:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemstar8 (talk • contribs)

I would like to add this paragraph about Maslow's pursuit of self actualization: 	According to Maslow in his pursuit of “peak experiences” he confronts religious traditions. Through his findings he believes that “religion is now receiving empirical support” and that “organized religion can be thought of as an effort to communicate peak-experiences to no-peakers”. Since this is his belief he believe that unless a religion performs this task it is self-defeating.

(Breslauer, S. D. (n.d.). ABRAHAM MASLOW'S CATEGORY OF PEAK-EXPERIENCE AND THE THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF RELIGION.) Miller97 (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add the sentence, "The highest-level of the pyramid is called the growth needs or B-needs", to this article as part of an assignment for school. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Nguyennn (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there needs to be more written on the female prospective for this learning theory. One of the main concerns with Maslow today is that the pyramid only reflects the male point of view. With the changing demographics in our society an update is needed to make Maslow's hierarch of needs relevant in the 21st century. With the emergence of women in the workplace and women outnumbering men on college campuses the structure Maslow implemented needs to be reevaluated. (USCgregkoz (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

I think the pyramid should be highlighted more on the page as in describing about the hierarchy of needs.--Choates24 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Physiological needs
I would like to add the following sentences as the second paragraph under the Physiological needs section.

"Physiological needs are the most prepotent of all the other needs. Therefore, the human that lacks food, love, esteem, or safety would consider the greatest of his/her needs to be food."

Oagbatutu (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Safety Needs
I would like to add the following information to the first paragraph of the last sentence under the Safety needs section.

"This level is more likely to be found in children because they have a greater need to feel safe."

llepper4 (talk)Llepper4 (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What's your source? Emeraldflames (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Precursor
I propose to cite the precursor, and the Latin motto Primum vivere, deinde philosophari. Laurusnobilis (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)