Talk:Maslow's hierarchy of needs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ugh

Someone protected it without fixing the interlanguage links. —Keenan Pepper 17:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge from self actualization

Posting here, as that's where the template links discussion to. Self-actualization was merged a while back, after an AfD vote. Recently, self actualization was created. I think it should be redirected here, just like the original was. Comment below. --Christopher Thomas 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Keenan Pepper 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been a month and a half. Anyone else agree/disagree with the merge? --Christopher Thomas 17:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. While Maslow may have been the first to put it into such words, I think self actualization is an idependant concept that exists outside of Maslow's hierarchy and deserves it's own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.65.54 (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree with this last comment.—Zoe Ocean 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoe Buchanan (talk • contribs).

Melisa syndrome

In the Love/Belonging section needs the "Melisa syndrome" is mentioned. I couldn't find it anywhere else on Wikipedia. Can anyone please elaborate on it?--Amir E. Aharoni 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This was added very recently by an anonymous editor. I don't have the background to know whether it's valid or not. --Christopher Thomas 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant discussion

I have noticed a large amount of discussion about this article focusing on whether Maslow's theory is scientific or not. Please keep in mind that editors' opinions on the factual accuracy of his theory are irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes. What matters is that the article accurately reflects Maslow's published views, and is accordingly presented as his theory, not as objective fact. WP:V clarifies the issue: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Azareon 04:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. The question is does self-actualization mean anything outside of someone's theory, whether Maslow's or not. If it goes with a theory, then it needs to be incorporated into that theory. Does it have a definition all of its own, apart from anyone's theory? KarenAnn 17:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

I've created a cleaner version of the hierarchy pyramid but I'm not very familiar with the procedure to follow when replacing images. This is the image:

Please consider replacing the current image with this version. Mrestko 09:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal statment in article

The following contribution by 66.65.196.71 (talk) is worded in the form of a personal statement. Assuming good faith, and removing text from article and placing here, in case editor wants to discuss. --KeithB 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the being accepted affects all aspects of life, as an infant one must be positivly accepted into thier parents(caregivers)lives. In toddler years one must be accepted by children their age, and able to feel comfortable to share and play with others. During the teen years one must be accepted as an understanding, trustworthy equal member in a friendship. During an individuals twenties an one must be accepted as a equal partner in a "sexual" relationship, they must feel comfrotable to express there own ideas and values and be able to work as a team to better one anothers life.

Missing section on Cognitive and Aesthetic Needs

Someone needs to add this to his pyramid. Maslow discussed them in his books. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForrestLane42 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Maslow did indeed discuss cognitive and aesthetic needs in his books; but he did not rank them within the hierarchy. See my referenced comment above headed 'Number of Levels'. They should therefore be discussed in the article, but not included in the pyramid. Incidentally, it is not 'his' pyramid—Maslow did not illustrate the hierarchy (this was done by others); he did, however, articulate that it was a hieracrchy by his use of the term 'pre-potent'—again, see my comment headed 'Number of Levels' above.—-Zoe Ocean 02:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoe Buchanan (talk • contribs).

The Highest Human Need Is Not Self Actualization

"Self Actualization" is a vague concept. I believe, that the highest human need is to control everything that exists, meaning the entire universe. In other word, to be God.209.53.195.182 19:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While no doubt interesting, your comment is not relevant, since this is an encyclopaedic article and, as such, is limited to Maslow's theory rather than your thoughts on it. It explains, however, your need to comment on it.—Zoe Ocean 02:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoe Buchanan (talk • contribs).

Criticism in Introduction

I think it's bad organization, as well as point of view, to argue with examples against the idea in the introduction.

However, one of the main flaws in the theory is that level 3 can be reached without completing level 2, as you can have numerous friends but no security.

Perhaps replacing it with. "The theory has come under criticism from detractors who point out numerous counterexamples to the idea", and then point out examples in the Counterpositions section (which I think should be broadened into Counterposition/Criticism).

I think this would greatly improve the quality of the article. Interpretivechaos 02:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As part of his theory, Maslow himself stated that the needs could be achieved out of order and gave many examples; and that this did not invalidate his theory, but rather exemplified exceptions to what is generally the case. Your proposed amendment is therefore not appropriate. Instead the article should make Maslow's own observations on this point clear.—Zoe Ocean 02:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoe Buchanan (talk • contribs).

Edwin Nevis and all the information at the bottom of the article about his hierarchy

I've got some pretty serious doubts as to how influential this particular theory has been in counterdiscussion of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I'm going to move his information from here into two separate articles -- Edwin C. Nevis and Nevis's Hierarchy of Needs. They're interesting enough, I suppose, but I don't think they belong here. --Roman à clef 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dear God -- I hadn't read the information in the Nevis bits of this article closely enough. Much of this information is either outright wrong or phrased in such a way as to provide little insight into the real motivations behind many of these things. The original text is below:

By comparing cultural assumptions underlying Chinese management practices with those underlying American ones, Nevis constructed a Chinese hierarchy of needs:

• Self-Actualization
• Safety
• Physiology
• Belonging

In Mao Zedong’s era (1945–1976), national unity and loyalty were not compromised in China. All farms were communal and no individual farming was allowed; industry was state-owned and operated; revolutionary pattern was recycled to attack societal classes taking form and keep China as classless as possible; lack of color in clothing was a hint of desensualization; groups were extensively used to control political, factory and commune work. Their group-oriented life style was also marked in the social life which centered on work unit activities and coworker lives as they all lived in the same apartment buildings. Once a Chinese individual belonged to a work unit, “iron rice bowl”, like “golden handcuffs” in the U.S., was guaranteed with many basic needs cared for by the work unit and the government, such as housing, education and medical care. This juxtaposition of belongingness and the satisfaction of the physical rewards resulted in the Chinese basic assumption of collectivism that being a good member of society and putting group goals before individual needs should govern all practices. Some other assumptions were national loyalty, equal pay and equal bonus regardless of skill or output differences, avoidance of personal credit for accomplishment, importance of communal property, and emphasis on group forces for motivation. On the contrary, Maslow’s formulation was clearly made from basic American cultural assumptions stressing self-concept of individuals and individual achievement.

Moreover, ego needs and needs for self-actualization were not highly valued in Chinese culture in the way that Americans held it. Many Western observers noted the embarrassment of Chinese people at being singled out for individual achievements, and the fear being seen as special, or having more than the neighbors. Judging by his survey results from Chinese workers and graduate students, Nevis found that although social needs predominated over individual needs in China, what was worth speculating was that the difference between workers’ and graduate students’ survey ranks indicated that ego or self-esteem, which was missing in the Chinese hierarchy and defined through items like “interesting job” and “full appreciation for work done”, might emerge as a new level in the new generation of Chinese with the opening up of individual freedom in the country. Although actualization remained at the top of both hierarchies, to call the highest Chinese order of need “social confluence” might be more appropriate since self-actualization was understandable only in terms of contribution to society. However, American people perceive self-esteem needs as a driving force, and symbols of achievement as rewards for successful self-actualization.

I don't even really know where to begin with improving this to the standards it'd have to be improved to to be a Wikipedia article in its own right. The farms didn't just magically start being communal -- this all happened during the Great Leap Forward. "Iron rice bowl" is a phrase popularized during this time that talked about particularly secure jobs, and the US "golden handcuffs" have absolutely no relevance whatsoever. Additionally, who are we to decide how all Chinese students value their own needs for self-actualization? I highly doubt Nevis makes such broad, sweeping claims in his article -- and if he does, we need a specific citation from it and some explanation. Furthermore, the bits about Chinese "assumptions" of "national loyalty, equal pay and equal bonus regardless of skill or output differences, avoidance of personal credit for accomplishment, importance of communal property, and emphasis on group forces for motivation" quite honestly make me want to throw things -- did the person writing this even know anyone who was Chinese? Grr.

To be completely frank, this reads a whole lot less like an encyclopedia article and a whole lot more like an undergraduate essay someone slapped together for a psychology course. I've removed it from the article and left the page I'd promised about Nevis's hierarchy of needs empty -- if you folks can find something to fill it with that isn't this, then by all means have at it. --Roman à clef 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments from subpage

The information expressed on the image is incorrect because it is missing Cognitive and Aesthetic needs(I added them) but i feel the image should be changed to give a more accurate depiction of the hierarchy of needs. The order should be Physiological needs, Safety needs, love and belonging needs, esteem needs, cognitive needs, Aesthetic needs, and then self-actualization(Listed from bottom to top) It is utterly insulting to have a high school freshman correcting the content on this page so please change the image and some of the content in order to describe this topic more accurately. Arulious 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)AruliousArulious 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you (re-?)read Maslow's 1970 work, you will find that he did not rank cognitive and aesthetic needs within the hierarchy. See my referenced comment above headed 'Number of Levels'—-Zoe Ocean 02:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoe Buchanan (talk • contribs).

WHY ?!

WHY IS MASLOW'S 'HIERARCHY OF NEEDS' STILL TAUGHT TO PEOPLE FROM MANY DIFFERENT PROFESSIONS? WITHIN TRAINING TO BE A YOUTH WORKER WITH THE COUNTY COUNCIL IT IS TAUGHT AND ASSIGNMENTS ABOUT MASLOW'S THEORY ARE REQUIRED. UNDERGRATUATES FOR PRIMARY TEACHING BACHELORS OF EDUCATION, ARE TAUGHT IT AND REQUIRED TO MAKE PRESENTAIONS BASED ON RESEARCH ABOUT THE THEORY. TO BECOME A LICENSED COUNSELLOR YOU RECIEVE NUMEROUS TRAINING INVLOVING MASLOW'S THEORY. AND BASED ON READING MOST OF THE COMMENTS ABOVE ME, HIS THEORY IS TAUGHT TO PEOPLE STUDYING PSYCOLOGY.

WHY IS HIS THEORY BEING TAUGHT TO SO MANY GROUPS WHEN IT HAS LITTLE CREDIBLE RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE? I CAN HARDLY FIND ANY RESEARCH MASLOW HAS DONE, AND NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT THERE IS ANY HIERARCHY OF NEEDS WITHIN US. I HAVE FOUND MANY EXAMPLES OF WHY MASLOW'S 'HEIRARCHY OF NEEDS' DOES NOT ADD UP, THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO PEOPLES EXPERIENCES OF LIFE AND THAT MASLOW HIMSELF SAID THIS THEORY WAS A GUESS LACKING EVIDENCE. SO WHY AM I AND SO MANY PEOPLE STILL TAUGHT THIS THEORY? ARE THERE NOT MANY OTHER THEORIES THAT HAVE CREDIBLE RESEARCH THAT PROVES THEIR TRUTH, THAT WILL CHALLENGE OUR THINKING AND UNDERSTANDING OF PEOPLE, THEIR NEEDS, THEIR HEALTH(MENTALLY,EMOTIONALLY AND PHYSICALLY) AND THE WAY THESE THINGS RELATE TO EACH OTHER? SURELY THERE MUST BE, BECAUSE PSYCOLOGY HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, RESEARCHED AND APPLIED FOR MANY YEARS. WHY AM I, AND OTHERS WHO MAY UNKNOWINGLY TAKE THIS UNEVIDENCED THEORY AS FACT, BEING TAUGHT THIS BY THE AGENCIES, PROFESSIONALS AND UNIVERSITIES WE ARE WITHIN?!

IF ANYONE KNOWS ANY ANSWERS PLEASE REPLY. IF YOU ARE AWARE OF BETTER THEORIES PLEASE REPLY WITH THEIR NAMES OR THEORY TITLES, BECAUSE I CAN SUGGEST THEM TO THE AGENCY I WORK FOR WHO ARE TRAINING ME AT THE MOMENT WITH MASLOW. HELP PLEASE!

SarahRuthFrancis 16:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't shout! This is the talk page about the article. Regardless of whether or not Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a valid theory, it is one that is widely known. It warrants an encyclopedia entry. "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." You could probably post your question on a forum somewhere else. Ryan Brady 07:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Application to the Real World

The section entitled Application to the Real World has been flagged as possibly containing original research. I think that this section is entirely unscientific and not fitting for an encyclopedia. It is basically an anarchist rant. I am removing that section. Feel free to disagree. Ryan Brady 07:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing content/references (vandalism?)

This series of edits on 4 Mar by 71.91.51.211 seems to have removed about half of the article, including references referenced by the remaining text of the article. 66.32.250.91 08:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Needed?

Would it be a good idea, and can somebody set up a redirect from Maslow's Theory to come to this page? I googled that search term, and had to click a couple times to arrive here. A redirect might be better, no? I'd do it myself, but I know not how.

Mjlissner 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)