Hierarchy of needs

Post Reply New Topic

Looking at the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I was suddenly struck by the 'esteem' coming, as it were, after 'love/belonging' - it seemed weird considering we are continually told that we first have to have good self esteem and then the belonging and love come afterwards.

I'd be interested to hear what others on this forum think?

Hierarchy of Needs clicky

I find it funny that he lumps "sex" in with "breathing" and "water". Somehow I think that eating and breathing are slightly more important than sex.

Obviously, we all need food, air, and water to survive...but there's a whole lot more needed for a full and healthy life.

I'm so sick of cultures that place "self-esteem" as the highest goal for everyone. Its good to care about yourself, but behaving like your inherent worth comes only from yourself is prideful and foolish. I like how Brad Stine put this...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWZ_0DnSypA[/youtube]

You miss the point - that level is 'physiological'. It's looking at it from a simple body function, and that's where the simple mechanics belong.

It's a model. Like all models, it has its uses and weaknesses. Jung and Adler are other connected names.

From the same Wikipedia article that the pyramid may be lifted from:



I think that this is a good counter-argument against simple Darwinistic theories that some use to reduce life, and people, to being sex-oriented.

I agree.

However, it's often 'self-actualisation' that is put as the highest goal for everyone.

My opinion on that thing is that it's just something that some guy made up and I don't understand why so many people worship it so uncritically.

"Oh, I can't realise my full potential because I'm not getting sex!"

well what's the point of the pyramid if some of these are not more important than the others?

Also, I was wondering..would this type of methodology look different for an AS & HFA - not to mention LFA?

Do LFA even care about self esteem, never mind family, love etc?



add: and the perhaps-too-obvious point - the material security including food/roof over head etc. which most people seem to skip, but not everyone has the luxury to - sex can get tangled up in that and has done for centuries

I could just as easily draw a pyramid with the needs reversed, and it wouldn't suddenly mean that self-esteem was more important than food.
Of course some things are more important than others, but that doesn't mean that the whole thing is correct.

The Esteem part is at the right point, it does not mean thinking you are gods gift to humanity It is about being able to feel like you belong and have the ability to respect others and yourself.

You can't feel this way without love I have tried for my entire life to get that but no matter what anyone says they are lying to themselves if they think they are fine being alone.

You can't forget to take care of yourself first though, never expect someone else to be your crutch and to get you to stand on your own feet.

The part where society has failed us is that it puts to much emphasis on judging others instead of acceptance and trying to help them. People find it nearly impossible to bridge that gap when they are constantly put down and because their self esteem has been destroyed they are now found unattractive to other people.

It depends on what you mean by "judgment", too. In this case, it seems you're describing personal condemnation.

Ya that is a better way to describe it.

It's not about importance. It's about sequence; each levels builds on the ones before. Each level is difficult or impossible to have met if the previous levels aren't met successfully. It goes: Physiological -> Safety -> Belonging -> Self-esteem -> Self-actualization

In other words, someone who's unsure when his next meal will happen is not likely to worry about feeling safe; food comes before safety. Someone without a source of income and good health (safety) is not going to concern himself with looking for a relationship (belonging). And so on, until you reach the top level.

There's a very fitting, laconic Jewish proverb: "Without flour where is no Torah."

The proverb means that, someone who is not getting enough food to eat is going to have difficulty focusing on living a moral life and observing religious laws. That's why there is a strong tradition in the Jewish culture to give money to charity. So even the poorest of the poor will have just enough food to motivate themselves to adhere to the Jewish laws. This ties in to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and the proverb existed long before Maslow's theory did.

I've always assumed that this was more of an example of how we usually move through our wants and needs.
For example, once we (individually) feel enough fulfillment at one stage we naturally slide into the next "stage" as it were, and work to fulfill that stage. Presumably while maintaining and adapting the previous stages.

Be careful also about putting too fine a point on the definition of "Need".
This model makes sense and is useful for noticing what one may need to work on fulfilling first, but it is NOT a mathematical equation of rigid definitions and interchangeable constants.

It's one of those things you gotta kinda 'work with him' on understanding his point, and it can be useful to you.

----
Or, for people that find fault with everything...
Yes, you found faults with it. You're so smart. Here's money and a Nobel Prize.
----

leafplant, I think you are right that this seems to oppose what we're usually told of "have good self esteem and then the belonging and love come afterwards. " This is what we're told usually as adults or at least old enough to use complex language. Receiving love and acceptance (belonging?) as a baby and infant and child is very likely what generates much of our individual self esteem.
Also a person's self esteem sky-rockets when people are nice to them and demonstrate that they like them.
At least it does for me, it's very noticeable though I don't like to think of my self as that dependent (?) on other's behaviors.

Right here. If you haven't met enough of one level, the level above really isn't going to even be on your radar.

They're not in order of importance. More like in order of sophistication. As you meet the most basic tier, you start to think about the one above.

Hence self-esteem-- If you don't have SOME measure of belonging, however small, self-esteem is going to be out of your reach.

Reminds me of a saying, attributed I believe to Bill Gates, that I always hated but have come to believe is true: "Self-esteem is something you earn."

It's true. It's just that there's a qualifier-- to be able to do the things you have to do in order to earn self-esteem, SOMETHING has to exist to give you a baseline level of self-respect and some sense, however small, of self-efficacy. Some idea that you are, indeed, worthy of love and acceptance and have, on some level, some degree of capacity to improve yourself and your lot.

Maybe everybody's got their own 'pyramid' of transitory wants, just like everyone seems to have their own language.

Is anyone ever satisfied with transitory wants, anyway.

Put it this way: I can manage to be creative and moral even when I'm isolated and not getting laid.
People just look at the fact that ACTUAL needs like food and basic safety are on the bottom and presume that the rest must be accurate.