Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Janice Rowe (talk | contribs) at 20:45, 20 September 2005 (→Criticism section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

""I believe that the best reference for the /rest/ of human's requirements for self-esteem and balance and genuine happiness may lie in William Glasser's work on Choice Theory... and that all five of Maslow's heirarchy may in fact belong in Glasser's first 2 human needs theory: that of Physical (food, safety, sex, sleep, etc.) and Love and Belonging, leaving three more factors unrequited: power, freedom and fun.

It is my opinion, in fact, that the two (Maslow's 'actualization' and Glasser's 'power, freedom and fun') might cover the 'rest' of what drives human behaviour -- good or bad.""

I'm not sure personal opinion belongs here, but if you are going to give your personal opinion and belief, maybe you should tell us who you are...

  --Anon

Does anyone think that government furfills a human need? why do you think so?why so we get comfort in having some one organize most of what we do and how we live? If it doe fit into maslow's pyrimid then were in the pyrimid do you think? plz help me with these question i would be very grate full if you would like to reply you can email me at estefany1927@aol.com

I don't think the need for government fits into any one 'need' category. However, governments often aid people in fufilling some of these needs, whether it be physiological (welfare payments or food stamps), safety (an army to protect the people) to even esteem needs (such as humanitarian efforts that benefit a nation as a whole). It is important that any government ought to consider where the majority of its population lie in the hiearchy and plan appropriately if it wishes to remain popular. However, I do not think that Maslow's hiearchy deals with the believed need for an organized world. This is chiefly because this theory is principally concerned with the individual, rather than groups of people, which can behave very differently.

Some of the examples used are rather poor... Maria Teresa self-actualisation could have been Sainthood and the 'dark side of the human condition' is just plain vague. --CJWilly 17:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am very confused by this concept of a hierarchy of desires, as it seems to be turned topsy-turvey all the time. Certainly it is impossible to argue that safety always takes precedence over love, for instance. There are numerous instances of persons sacrificing one of the lower levels for one of the higher.

As I understand it, the hierarchy means that you must have all the lower levels before you can acheive or develop a higher level. This doesn't prohibit sacrificing a lower level for a higher level, at least briefly. But I don't really know, so maybe I'm wrong. Cookiecaper 23:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

psychological vs physiological ?

hi, I suppose such needs, as food, sleep, warmth, (and in some periods of life - sex) are ment to be physiological needs - they are based on hunger/lack_of feeling. and safety, is more of psychological need.

Which link to choose?

Since more than one external link uses the same text ("Maslow's hierarchy of needs"), how is a reader to choose one over another? Adding a description phrase to the link would help a reader distinguish between the external sources.

assumptions

Especially in a section headed "Criticism," as here, I'd like to see references for statements such as: "Maslow's theory may be regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality..." Maslow's theory is just that. I don't believe there is anything approaching universal agreement that it is "an improvement" -- or, as the author does mention, that it is even widely considered to be useful. Passive-mode editorializing of the form "x may be regarded as" has no place in a professional encyclopedia unless the writer is a "recognized authority" (and even then, but let's not get into impossibly thorny postmodern arguments about the legitimacy of "professional" knowledge). As there are few topics on which there is "anything approaching universal agreement" (whether because human beings are simply perverse, or because it keeps life interesting), it would be good to cite sources or evidence of some kind for such blanket assessments. --Clocke 04:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section

This section contains assertions that are not attributed to anyoone in particular and read like someone's opinion on the matter (my highlights):

While Maslow's theory may be regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality and motivation, concepts like self-actualization are vague. This becomes problematic to operationalize and test Maslow's theory. There is no proof that every individual has the capacity for self-actualization. Additionally, in their extensive review of research that is dependent on Maslow's theory, Wabha and Bridwell (1976) found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all. (It should be noted that Maslow himself documented and explored various paradoxes and subtleties in relation to his theory.)

Some people feel that the theory and its concepts have been overused. For instance, references to the theory occur in many undergraduate organizational behavior textbooks without any explication of the subtleties of the theory or any acknowledgement of its possible flaws. The word self-actualization is sometimes regarded as psycho-babble.

We need references for these assertions.

--Janice Rowe