Talk:Maslow's hierarchy of needs/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Justification

It's irrelevant whether Maslow's ideas are right or wrong, or to one's particular taste or not. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, so it should document the main points of what is, like it or not, an important and influential hypothesis that has affected many fields over the past 60 years or so.

I would encourage people to read Maslow's original 1943 paper, which is easily found on the web e.g. via Google Scholar. (There are only five levels there: physiological, safety, love, esteem and self-actualisation needs.)

84.9.82.184 09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! See my referenced comment above headed 'Number of Levels'—Zoe Ocean 02:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maslows hierarchy of needs V Generation Y

Is Maslow's hiearchy of needs still valid for generation Y?

Please respond.

Mnjcox 09:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you want us to do your homework? In what way does this question improve the article? Response not required. Slinky Puppet

I do agree with the Question. I have often looked at Maslows Hierachy of needs for my own Self improvement. But this question is valid. I myself am part of the Y Generation. I think there are many significant changes from one generation to the next. Hence, the question could be valid if it meant it was a more suitable model for the V generation and not as effective for the Y Generation.

It is an Interesting Question and further research could prove changes.

John Chris

self-transcendence?

what is that supposed to mean? and why is the reference copyrighted in 2008? noone will take this stuff serious like this, maybe this section should be removed, if you can't base it on some facts. otherwise it's just a creation of a new theory, that is not part of Maslow's.--Trickstar 21:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Partially correct. Maslow used the word "Ego-transcendence" to describe one of the aspects of a good love relationship. See M&P, pg 153. I think you will also find Maslow talking a lot about transcendence in his later works. Brentad 10:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)brentad

to be quite honest i think maslows theory is yes very good but we need more than all that he goes on. he was suppose to point us in the right direction, to how to have a better life but insted has basically said that he is right and we must do it this way i personally think its wrong! R.Farrel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.95.3 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is way incorrect

this page is way incorrect, the needs do not work on the basis of when one if filled then u can fill the others. there are pleny of homeless people that have self actualization and know themselves and thr world. more like a balance of all types is required and the article should reflect that in the writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.218.37 (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

] Read the Self-transcendance section. He addresses it, albeit in a vague way. 129.237.90.48 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Anorexia

I find this sentence to be a really inappropriate treatment of the topic of anorexia. "e.g. an anorexic ignores the need to eat and the security of health for a feeling of belonging." I don't believe this to be true. The social pressures the sentence is attempting to reference are complicated and anorexic behavior does not guarantee belonging or feelings of belonging. Let's try to find a better example rather than making weak assumptions that reinforce stereotypes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.65.188 (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the reference is to Anorexia as a nervous disorder, and while it may not actually facilitate the feeling of belonging in the person suffering from it, it is more that the person perceives that it may be a means by which to achieve that belonging. To better fit to social norms of beauty etc. And action may not achieve a goal, but if we think it does we will take that action. However, assuming the sentence is still in there, it probably should be reworded to express that distinction.Tonerman (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

More Maslow Discussion

There is some discussion going on, on the Person Centred Planning talk page about whether that article is improved or not by a link to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, particularly given the amount of influence Eugenics had on Maslow's approach, leading him to write things like "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy". Views of Maslow enthusiasts and detractors will both be welcome. Max (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Result of our discussion at the Person Centred Planning talk page is that the link to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has been deleted. We'd be interested to hear if anyone agrees or disagrees with this decision.Max (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing Critique-Section!

Hi, I just noticed that there is a huge and important part missing in this article. There should be a critique section. Almost every other article has one. I am not talking about a section, which explains why home-less budhists actually can be high on the pyramide. I am talking about a critique to the main components of the theory, and a comparison to similar theories. For example, isn't sex overrated in the article? And why do so many children run away from home, when the pyramid clearly states that family is so important?

80.161.139.104 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Julian

I agree with this. Critics/detractors of Maslow's theory are mentioned earlier in the article, but the criticisms themselves are not described.

Removed a random line

I removed the following from the article. I don't exactly think it belongs.

He has a boyfriend called Roger. He once adopted a child but soon threw him back to where he came from.

71.238.205.137 (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Commentary left in article

The following commentary was left in the article, so I've moved it here. —Mears man (talk) 15:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with Manfred Max Neef who argues that fundamental human needs are non-hierarchical, and are ontologically universal and invariant in nature. By nature i am very resistent to any theories but Maslow's hierarchy of need sounded so consistent with my observation of human psychology that not only i could not deny it but i used it's basic as a basis of my model for scaling "Business Benefits".

If the need for food is not met, one will not think of need for self esteem, that can be wel observed if you take a walk through downtown streets of bombai. People Beg for food when they're in need. So this tells how the need for self actualization comes next. People are even ready to fight with bears to get food, this shows how the need for food supercedes the need for security.

Yes the needs are hierachial, and since they're hierarchial, they will get a pyramid shape because it is reasonable to believe that not everyone can fullfil need A and move to need B. 213.42.21.62 (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"For the most part physiological and safety needs are reasonably well satisfied in our affluent and relatively lawful society."

Okay, this is a major problem. Wikipedia is international; who is the us in "our". I'm changing it to "in the first world". It's not good, but it had to be changed, so I'm putting citation needed on my own edit. Thoughts on what it should say? 24.20.131.232 (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

so where does music fit into all of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.95.124 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What is it?

The introduction actually does not say what it is or why Maslow introduced it. 78.149.87.145 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fake references

I'm not sure this a real reference: ^ Lim, Cwisfa; Khruschev, Vesh (2002). "Maslow's Pyramid - a necessity?" (12): 15-17. I can't find any evidence of this paper being published. 67.11.11.100 (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I, too, failed to find anything about this reference. I looked in Google, Google scholar, google books, and the U. of Washington Libraries. I also suspect that it is a fabrication. --Pballen (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that alot of the information inputed by the IP address that did this source are from the same author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.89.172.148 Dubious and/or original research perhaps.67.11.11.100 (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Safety of property not mentioned by Maslow

In the figure/diagram that shows Maslow's hierarchy of needs, safety of property has been put on the same level with security of health and body in this article. Looking at the original article of Maslow, property is not mentioned at all in the article. It is probably a mis-interpretation to put it on the same level. Maslow mentions the desire for a safety account and insurance, but this refers to these two specific items only, and probably only to the extent as they seem to be needed to assure safety of health and body. I think that most psychologists would agree with me that it is quite daring to derive from this a need for safety of something like private property in general, putting a Mercedes Benz on the same level as personal health. I would appreciate the opinion of others on this issue and, if necessary, a correction of the illustration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.27.100.161 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC) nbvnmbvl.bm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.151.174 (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that safety of porperty does fit well at this level. Your example shows a high level property, but the safety of our food being stored at home or the roof over our head is just as important as our personal health. If we worry about those items our health is effected in a negative way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derflord32 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad

This is a good well organised article that has helped me with my homework.

Damian R Thomson

I disagree - IMO this article is poorly written and disorginized, it looks like a jumble of contrary thoughts put together. And no, it has not helped me on my homework —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.239.213 (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)