New Hierarchy of needs dismisses certain people!

[KittiesSong]

Mainly those of us who don't want children or "mates" as they so eloquently put it... seriously... so I have to want to find a mate in order to completely fulfill my "evolutionarily fundamental needs" I call BS on this one. This feels like a "oh but sex is soooo important and you must want children or you aren't human" set up to me...

http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08/23/updated-maslows-pyramid-of-needs/17144.html#at_pco=tst-1.0&at_si=5563c670c3003ffd&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=1&at_tot=2

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but... this is how I'm reading this. Ugggg just... UGGGGG!

[Guest]

I'm not sure whose authority this was done on, but I can assure them that parenting can happen regardless of the stability and level of development of a parent. Honestly this looks like a joke...

Parenting could be a part of actualization for some. But honestly is absurd to call it a need.

[SkyWorld]

Seriously!? Bull. It was fine the way it was. <_< Self-actualization is the highest, living to that individual's full potential. You don't need another person to have that full potential, whether it be a mate or children.

I agree with Ellii, it may be for some, but it's not a "need". To me, a person who lives to their full potential depends on the individual. If a person is living to their full potential and someone comes along and say, "No you're not, you don't have children!" is really rude.

[Rising Sun]

Parenting us a need at species level. I don't think what's represented is an individual's hierarchy of needs, but the whole human species' hierarchy of needs.

[KittiesSong]

RIGHT??? That's what I thought. And ok for a large group of people making minimes and having a husband or wife IS the pinnacle of their actualization because they have fulfilled what I can only imagine is a lifelong dream for many people BUT being a parent or even a spouse doesn't make you who you are. YOU make you who you are... the other people are just part of your life and a BIG part of you but they aren't you. You can be absolutely miserable and have the worst self esteem ever and still "acquire a mate" maybe they are hoping this will steer people away from thinking another person can come before you actually figure yourself out but to call it an absolute need just boggles my mind. Really it does... I mean where do Aro Aces fit? How does this model interpret when you are working with children? "Hey kids work on yourself first and then you MUST find a mate and make babies to further our species, whether you want them or NOT!" Ace? You must be unfulfilled to not want sex and to reproduce! Are you sure you are... confident enough??? BLEH.

[KittiesSong]

Parenting us a need at species level. I don't think what's represented is an individual's hierarchy of needs, but the whole human species' hierarchy of needs.

Perhaps, however Maslow's pyramid was never meant to be a "species" level thing... it was meant to help us at an individual level. When we were taught about it we were to apply it in cases where we could use it on individual children to help them reach their full potential by being able to identify what level they were at and get them the supports they needed (be it food, protection, etc) in order to reach that goal of a fulfilled learning experience. This... quite honestly isn't very useful for it's original application.

[fish of hearts]

"The new pyramid already has generated some controversy within the field."

I'll wait for a consensus from the community and a more detailed report before commenting on the new pyramid itself.

I suppose for the moment, I'm mostly bothered by the assumptions that individual's parentage takes precedence, as opposed an inclination to protect all offspring. We take care of our species' genes, not simply our own family's. I often wonder how little evolutionary psychologists actually read of evolutionary biology…

[Kappamaki]

This is the part of the article I take most issue with:

The researchers state in the article that while self-actualization is interesting and important, it isn’t an evolutionarily fundamental need.

Instead, many of the activities that Maslow labeled as self-actualizing (artistic creativity, for example) reflect more biologically basic drives to gain status, which in turn serves the goal of attracting mates.

“Among human aspirations that are most biologically fundamental are those that ultimately facilitate reproduction of our genes in our children’s children,” Kenrick explained. “For that reason, parenting is paramount.”

The researchers are not saying that artists or poets are consciously thinking about increasing their reproductive success when they feel the inspiration to paint or write.

“Reproductive goals are ultimate causes,” Kenrick added, “like the desire of birds to migrate because it helps them survive and reproduce. But at a proximate (or immediate psychological) level, the bird migrates because its brain registers that the length of day is changing. In our minds, we humans create simply because it feels good to us; we’re not aware of its ultimate function.”

“You could argue that a peacock’s display is as beautiful as anything any human artist has ever produced,” Kenrick said.

“Yet it has a clear biological function – to attract a mate. We suspect that self actualization is also simply an expression of the more evolutionarily fundamental need to reproduce.”

The basic argument here is that self-actualization (and these psychologists specifically identify art as this, ignoring their own chosen field) is really driven by a subconscious quest for a mate. This is dumb. Really dumb. Like, ridiculous oversimplification of the human psyche dumb, even if you falsely believe everyone wants to reproduce. Art can be created for so many reasons: boosting one's own self-esteem, getting praise from your stepmom, gaining monetary profit, higher ideals of sharing ideas in the hope you'll improve life for others... Interpreting it all as peacock strutting is wrongheaded and simplistic.

Also, I would argue that by their own logic, these psychologists are publishing this proposed revision to Maslow's hierarchy of needs in the pursuit of sex.

[KittiesSong]

^^ this all of this. Bravo madam, thank you. I actually described how I felt about this to my friend as the"grok want to make pretty picture to get pretty mate grunt grunt" kind of idea... and that all our years of beautiful creativity and self expression are being boiled down to...well... sex and reproduction. Which completely misses the whole point of not only the original model but also our diversity as a species... There are even some animals who don't want to reproduce (though few and far between) but really? Are we THAT base that all of our advancements have all been in vain attempts to pass down our genes to the next generation. I find this insulting. I will be sticking with the original pyramid thank you very much!

[Sally]

I've never noticed that my painting has attracted possible mates, thank god. The one who was attracted without knowing I painted is enough.

If Maslow were alive, he'd laugh at this.

[KittiesSong]

I think he might have a heart attack... or yea... laugh his head off. Like seriously guys... I'm not freud LOL

[allrightalready]

it actually looks like they are going backwards as if the only real thing that matters is pairing up and breeding, this excuses their cutting out art and music and such

[Batman's Ace]

I don't understand how being a personally unfulfilled parent would be beneficial to anyone. I don't understand why being part of a group (affiliation) has replaced being loved. I'm confused.

[loomborn]

Holy shit, have we returned to the... i don't even know which epoch of humanity this would fit in. What kind of people who call themselves psychologists are leading this bullshit? This seems more like the religious sect of Orphan Black than a real study.

[Blakrana]

Whilst I concede that humans are an ape like the rest of them and are pretty much social creatures at base...I'm not quite sure why they need to 'update' something concerned with psychological individual health with hypothetical evolutionary survival needs.

Sure, as a blanket, I suppose it works perfectly if we want to describe humans in terms as an animal. It's pretty much perfect for applying to the animal kingdom, if we're being honest.

However, seeing as humans are strangely self aware and complicated weirdlings, this isn't so great. After all, not every human is, intends or desires to be a parent. Hell, humans have invented ways to avoid becoming and avoiding parental obligations so they can focus on themselves and sexy time or similar. I certainly can't see how people's propensity/desire to be creative is 'ultimately' about mating considering it is likely the majority if not entirety of our creative pursuits may be undertaken in private or, if made public, potentially hidden behind a pseudonym or persona so as to deflect interest.

Therefore, how can it be that 'ultimately' art and creativity are 'mate seeking' exercises, when if we're being quite honest, human society is still obsessed with famous people who are Sport stars or Movie Stars. When was the last time you heard much about a nation's greatest poet or what have you unless it's a slow news day? How many of these artistic sorts are the kind to be more focussed on their produced works than those who enjoy them?

Honestly, I fail to see how this is much more than describing the human animal at the expense of considering the human spirit.

But hey, I guess that's being poetic which means I'm just fishing for affection or something on some level or other...

[allrightalready]

Holy shit, have we returned to the... i don't even know which epoch of humanity this would fit in. What kind of people who call themselves psychologists are leading this bullshit? This seems more like the religious sect of Orphan Black than a real study.

takes us all the way back to amoeba everything exists just to replicate

[loomborn]

Holy shit, have we returned to the... i don't even know which epoch of humanity this would fit in. What kind of people who call themselves psychologists are leading this bullshit? This seems more like the religious sect of Orphan Black than a real study.

takes us all the way back to amoeba everything exists just to replicate

What is this trash about sex when we can be an squad of unicelular clones

[allrightalready]

Holy shit, have we returned to the... i don't even know which epoch of humanity this would fit in. What kind of people who call themselves psychologists are leading this bullshit? This seems more like the religious sect of Orphan Black than a real study.

takes us all the way back to amoeba everything exists just to replicate

What is this trash about sex when we can be an squad of unicelular clones

sexual replication adds the safety to the species of variety thus one infection will not wipe us out entirely

[KittiesSong]

Human spirit is a weird thing... and I really don't think we can boil everyone's motivations down to sexual desire and reproduction.

[loomborn]

Holy shit, have we returned to the... i don't even know which epoch of humanity this would fit in. What kind of people who call themselves psychologists are leading this bullshit? This seems more like the religious sect of Orphan Black than a real study.

takes us all the way back to amoeba everything exists just to replicate

What is this trash about sex when we can be an squad of unicelular clones

sexual replication adds the safety to the species of variety thus one infection will not wipe us out entirely

I was joking with a retoric question. .-.

[allrightalready]

Holy shit, have we returned to the... i don't even know which epoch of humanity this would fit in. What kind of people who call themselves psychologists are leading this bullshit? This seems more like the religious sect of Orphan Black than a real study.

takes us all the way back to amoeba everything exists just to replicate

What is this trash about sex when we can be an squad of unicelular clones

sexual replication adds the safety to the species of variety thus one infection will not wipe us out entirely

I was joking with a retoric question. .-.

sorry aspergers moment, i really appreciate people tagging sarcasm and jokes

[KittiesSong]

Also the affiliation replacing love/belongingness and the replacement of safety with self protection just rubs me all kinds of wrong.

[Guest]

I didn't find the diagram itself bad (heck, I found it better than the old one that explicitly listed sex as a bottom rung need). Breeding has never been on my to-do list, and I've recently taken mating off it, too... so this made some sense to me.

But the logic behind it, as explained in the article.... no, just no. I believe in art for art's sake, not in art for f***'s sake (literally).

[Skycaptain]

Richard Gross, Psychology, the science of mind and behaviour, Hodder Educational 2010 shows a rather different interpretation of Maslov's pyramid,. pp 131

top= self actualisation, realising one's full potential, becoming everything one is capable of becoming

2- Aesthetic needs. Beauty-in art and nature- symmetry, balance, order, form

3- Cognitive needs, knowledge and understanding, curiosity, exploration, need for meaning and predictability

4- Esteem needs, The esteem and respect of others, and self esteem and self respect. A sense of competence

5-Love and belongingness. Receiving and giving love, affection, trust and acceptance, affiliating, being part of a group ( family, friends and work)

6- Safety needs. Protection from potentially dangerous objects or situations, (e,g. the elements, physical illness), The threat is both physical and psychological (e.g fear of the unknown) importance of routine and familiarity

Bottom. Physiological needs. Food, drink, Oxygen, temperature regulation, elimination, rest, activity, sex

" We share the need for food with all living things, the need for love with ( perhaps) the higher apes, (and) the need for self-actualisation with (no other species)"

So, sex is perceived as a basic physiological need. Any asexual would disagree. Anyone who is sex-repulsed would disagree. Anyone with no libido would disagree. To be fair to Maslow and others, I feel that they are considering the greater majority of the human population. Also, when these works were first published would he have been aware of asexuality. Are the publishers of the revised pyramid aware of asexuality?

Last quote from Gross

"Do you consider Maslow's hierarchy to be a useful way of thinking about human motivation?

Do you think he's omitted any important motives?

To what extent might the hierarchy reflect the culture and historical time in which Maslow lived and wrote?"

So, suggesting that there may be room for improvement. Bear in mind that the original text was published in 1954, culture, education, birth control, a lot has advanced since then. Maybe it would have made more sense to hypothesise an alternative pyramid, rather than rewriting an existing one, but, speaking as a layman, I can see room for improvement in the original pyramid. Where sex appears in the old one or the new one I have no idea, all I can say there is that I don't miss something that I have never experienced, and am not motivated to experience

[KittiesSong]

I never learned about the placement of sex in the old pyramid. We were taught that the basic needs included shelter, food, some sort of proper clothing/protection from the elements, water, etc. Sex was never mentioned.

[SorryNotSorry]

Mainly those of us who don't want children or "mates" as they so eloquently put it... seriously... so I have to want to find a mate in order to completely fulfill my "evolutionarily fundamental needs" I call BS on this one. This feels like a "oh but sex is soooo important and you must want children or you aren't human" set up to me...

http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08/23/updated-maslows-pyramid-of-needs/17144.html#at_pco=tst-1.0&at_si=5563c670c3003ffd&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=1&at_tot=2

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but... this is how I'm reading this. Ugggg just... UGGGGG!

The solution is simple IMO... a separate hierarchy for pleasure junkies. Problem solved.

[Skycaptain]

This new pyramid looks like a good path to raise a family on, but in a different order.

Bottom- immediate physiological needs, finding your orientation

Mate acquisition- dating

Affiliation- falling in love

self-protection, becoming comfortable in the relationship

status and self esteem- getting yourselves emotionally and psychologically prepared for raising a family

Mate retention, Marriage, a vow of togetherness or fidelity

Top- parenting, the creation and raising of children.

But, there are so many breaks in the pyramid that I struggle to see how it can apply universally. To me, I am quite happy without parenting, mate retention, mate acquisition, affiliation, so my psychological well-being is a very short, truncated pyramid

[Autumn Season]

Another proof that i am asexual: While sex is a basic need for most people, at least if we follow Maslow's pyramid, then for me it is not a need at all. And if for some reason I still wanted to try sex, I would do it after fulfilling all of the other five levels of needs, meaning that sex would be at the very top of the pyramid for me.

On another note: What I understood of evolution after reading "The Selfish Gene", was the following: Everything is coincidental and nothing is necessarily connected. While we might be into arts, that doesn't mean we are attracted to the artist, especially not in a sexual way.

Genes do not think, they just are. The "fittest" genes survive in a long run, sure. But that doesn't mean the genes try to make the human body copulate/ fight for survival/ take care of their siblings on purpose. If the genes influence us in this way, it's purely by chance. Having sex is not the "reason" for anything. All of us, all of our feelings, actions, bodyparts, everything exists just for the sake of existing, NOT to be able to have sex more or to attract a partner. That many people want to aquire mates, is also an evolutional coincidence. There is a reason why we (as the human race) want sex: The genes which make us want it. And the genes which make us want it, have a high likelihood of surviving in our gene pool. BUT sex is not the reason we want XYZ.

[DiEvAl]

I'm not going to say it's complete bullshit. I suspect it might apply humans that lived let's say 10000 years ago. ;)

[SkyWorld]

I never learned about the placement of sex in the old pyramid. We were taught that the basic needs included shelter, food, some sort of proper clothing/protection from the elements, water, etc. Sex was never mentioned.

Same here. I apologize I cannot site this textbook for I have turned it in at the end of the year, but I have taken a picture of their chart and I think it's perfectly fine as such.