3 ms·

I'd be interested in reading suggestions for criticism of Maslow or "win win". The few criticisms I've found of Maslow seem to be that it's not 100% universal

by _dps 6y ago

I'd be interested in reading suggestions for criticism of Maslow or "win win". The few criticisms I've found of Maslow seem to be that it's not 100% universal across individuals and cultures. This is true, but I think not much of a criticism of a model that's meant to be a rough guideline to a very complex topic. If Maslow is only 80% valid across all of humanity I think that's a pretty decent model, but if there are deeper criticisms I'd be interested to learn. Similarly I'm not aware of any criticism of the concept of "win win" which, in my understanding, is just a definition of certain kinds of mutually beneficial situations. So I don't even have a frame for how it could be wrong :) Any reading advice on this subject would also be appreciated.

johnsmith4739 6y ago
Happy to do so, here is the data I operate with: Maslow's hierarchy of needs is supposed to provide a prioritisation of needs - physical needs take priority over self-actualisation. If the model is wrong you would see many inversions. As in people prioritising self-actualisation to shelter - live in worse situation but get a better education. Therefore the pyramid does not provide a model that can reflect reality in an accurate way and we have inversions all over the place - from students going to better universities to people climbing dangerous summits. There is a much better model - based in neuroscience, meaning that it has physiological proof to back it up. The Grawe consistency theory (neuropsychotherapy) has a much simpler approach: 3 needs we share with the whole living entities: Orientation/Control; Pleasure Maximisation/Pain Minimisation; Attachment; and one specific to humans Self-Enhancement (my work is, among others, focused on what causes this specific need, btw) The needs are acted out through "behavioural schemas" - either approach or avoidance behaviours. With this basic model you can empathise much better with anyone - when they do this, do they want to get something or get away from something? Does that give them more or less control, or maybe attachment? Nothing in Maslow's model can deliver this kind of understanding. Win-Win is related to behavioural change, that is rooted in empathy. How can you change behaviours if you don't understand them? Win-Win (Harvard model) is competing with the FBI model of behavioural change (the stairway). While the former implicitly expects us to be rather similar (playing the role of businessmen) the latter does away with ego and focuses all efforts in understanding the overt and subconscious motives of the other part, and then presents a solution that is connected to that. And it works much better in practice, mainly because is meant to work when our motives can seem incompatible - try a win-win with a hostage-taker. Anyway, remember that all models are wrong, but some of them are more useful. Part of this journey is to practice models and see what helps you get the results you want.
- _dps 6y ago
  This is very interesting and helpful, thank you!

by _dps 6y ago

johnsmith4739 6y ago

Happy to do so, here is the data I operate with: Maslow's hierarchy of needs is supposed to provide a prioritisation of needs - physical needs take priority over self-actualisation. If the model is wrong you would see many inversions. As in people prioritising self-actualisation to shelter - live in worse situation but get a better education. Therefore the pyramid does not provide a model that can reflect reality in an accurate way and we have inversions all over the place - from students going to better universities to people climbing dangerous summits. There is a much better model - based in neuroscience, meaning that it has physiological proof to back it up. The Grawe consistency theory (neuropsychotherapy) has a much simpler approach: 3 needs we share with the whole living entities: Orientation/Control; Pleasure Maximisation/Pain Minimisation; Attachment; and one specific to humans Self-Enhancement (my work is, among others, focused on what causes this specific need, btw) The needs are acted out through "behavioural schemas" - either approach or avoidance behaviours. With this basic model you can empathise much better with anyone - when they do this, do they want to get something or get away from something? Does that give them more or less control, or maybe attachment? Nothing in Maslow's model can deliver this kind of understanding. Win-Win is related to behavioural change, that is rooted in empathy. How can you change behaviours if you don't understand them? Win-Win (Harvard model) is competing with the FBI model of behavioural change (the stairway). While the former implicitly expects us to be rather similar (playing the role of businessmen) the latter does away with ego and focuses all efforts in understanding the overt and subconscious motives of the other part, and then presents a solution that is connected to that. And it works much better in practice, mainly because is meant to work when our motives can seem incompatible - try a win-win with a hostage-taker. Anyway, remember that all models are wrong, but some of them are more useful. Part of this journey is to practice models and see what helps you get the results you want.

_dps 6y ago
This is very interesting and helpful, thank you!