9 ms·

Surviving Childhood Adversity

• loveisALLuneed 10y ago
  This article is incredible. According to the Maslow was wrong. Love from others is more important than food, water and shelter. Is this true? I think so. In a very real sense, these other physical needs won't be me unless there is love. The degree of love in our life and resilience in the face of adversity shapes each person in this world.
  • donw 10y ago
    This does make some sense from an anthropological perspective. For tribal people, being excommunicated from the tribe was a death sentence. This is also the reason that people fear public speaking so much (the risk of losing favor with the tribe).
    • ptaipale 10y ago
      However, being excommunicated was death sentence because it denied people of basic physical needs such as food, water and shelter. Being lonely is miserable, but what kills you is exposure to cold or starvation.
      • johnchristopher 10y ago
        There's more to it than death by metabolism failure. We are a very social species, it's the biological norm for its members to suffer from forced or imposed loneliness.
        • ptaipale 10y ago
          Of course, but death by metabolism failure usually comes sooner.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • jacalata 10y ago
    Plenty of kids appear to have survived horrific orphanage experiences, growing up abused, and a complete lack of love. I'm yet to hear of one that made it without food.
    • klibertp 10y ago
      > appear to have survived Plenty of kids appear to have committed suicide due to such experiences. This is a very literal example of "survivorship bias" :-)
      • efaref 10y ago
        But some survived. How many survived with zero food?
        • klibertp 10y ago
          To be clear, I'm arguing the other way around: not that you can survive complete lack of food, but that there are people who did not survive complete lack of love.
          • reddytowns 10y ago
            That's confusing coincidence with causality. You can't prove "complete lack of love", whatever that means, killed them.
            • klibertp 10y ago
              I used "complete lack of love" as a short version of what another commenter wrote: "horrific orphanage experiences, growing up abused, and a complete lack of love". I can agree that "complete lack of love" is rather hard to define, but are you sure that it's just a coincidence, when an abused, humiliated, tortured person commits suicide?
              • jacalata 10y ago
  • hammock 10y ago
    Maslow's hierarchy of needs has been discredited for years now.
    • Bartweiss 10y ago
      It's joined the ranks of Freud and a great many others in sticking around as a big idea in literary analysis. There seems to be something about that field that leaps at the chance to use the shady, discredited pieces of the other social sciences.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• anilgulecha 10y ago
  What's the science of human-relationships called? (not exactly anthropology..) Whatever it is, it feels like it's gotten much less attention than it deserves, going by the affect it can have on our lives. Great article.
  • gerbilly 10y ago
    >What's the science of human-relationships called? I'd say it's a combination of combination of Social psychology [1] and Developmental Psychology[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Psychology [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology