4 ms·

So... this is about visualisation of the Maslow's Hierarchy? Does the usage of _pyramid visualisation_ change the aspect or message of the Hierarchy?

klabb3 4y ago
Agreed. I was preparing to be told I've been bamboozled about Maslov. Fortunately the critique was limited to (a) non-authentic visualization of a hierarchy and (b) someone has misused a theory.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
falcolas 4y ago
Not that I read in that string of tweets. The closest I saw was the assertion that managers used Maslow's hierarchy as a way to justify increasing morale without pay raises. Which doesn't seem like it relates to the shape of the diagram (or any other representation of the hierarchy) at all.
- mvkel 4y ago
  Are the two mutually exclusive? If managers are doing things higher on the hierarchy but employees want higher wages, that just means they're further down the hierarchy and that need hasn't yet been fulfilled.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    It has more to do with the idea that authorities will decide what they want to do then recruit words from anywhere they can find to justify it, than it has to do with what those words say. (See also: Crusaders using Jesus as a rallying symbol for mass killings of civilians, 1920s American eugenicists using the science of heredity to justify racism followed by 1930s Nazis who developed on the theme, 1980s Regan administration selectively using basic economic ideas to dismantle public welfare, while staying silent about corporate welfare.)
    - blowski 4y ago
      Is that behaviour limited to authorities? Teenagers frequently do the same thing.
      - whatshisface 4y ago
        It is limited to authorities in the history books because by definition when non-authorities do it, it doesn't go very far. :-) No matter how much a medieval peasant hates the Franks, nobody will ever know.
sfink 4y ago
The pyramid implies (to me, at least) that the lower layers are absolutely necessary for the next layer up. It appears that Maslow himself wasn't so absolute about it, and referred to the degree with which lower-level needs were fulfilled. It is arguable that the "absolute" interpretation is not fundamental to either the pyramid or the hierarchy. It's still probably a good first order approximation to get the point across: you're gonna have trouble with upper layers if you have any serious deficiencies in lower layers.
- crate_barre 4y ago
  the lower layers are absolutely necessary for the next layer up. So to counter the idea, all you really need to do is find examples of self esteem and self actualization before achieving the physical needs.
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    They are absolutely NOT necessary. Otherwise a monk with perfect self-actualization would lose all that when their monastery burns down. I’m fairly confident that isn’t the case. Instead shelter becomes a dominant motivator, but they still self-actualize just fine.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
kashyapc 4y ago
The pyramid does confuse and muddy the waters a lot. Scott Kaufman's post[1] on his "sailboat" metaphor unpacks the problem well: The familiar pyramid shape suggests that once we complete each step, we’re done dealing with that need forever. As if life were a video game, and once we complete each level, we unlock the next, with no looking back. It’s an appealing concept. It’s also a gross misrepresentation of the humanistic vision that propelled Maslow’s work. Maslow emphasized that we are always in a state of becoming and that one’s “inner core” consists merely of “potentialities, not final actualizations” that are “weak, subtle, and delicate, very easily drowned out by learning, by cultural expectations, by fear, by disapproval, etc.” [1] https://scottbarrykaufman.com/sailboat-metaphor/ https://scottbarrykaufman.com/sailboat-metaphor/

klabb3 4y ago

Agreed. I was preparing to be told I've been bamboozled about Maslov. Fortunately the critique was limited to (a) non-authentic visualization of a hierarchy and (b) someone has misused a theory.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

falcolas 4y ago

Not that I read in that string of tweets. The closest I saw was the assertion that managers used Maslow's hierarchy as a way to justify increasing morale without pay raises. Which doesn't seem like it relates to the shape of the diagram (or any other representation of the hierarchy) at all.

mvkel 4y ago
Are the two mutually exclusive? If managers are doing things higher on the hierarchy but employees want higher wages, that just means they're further down the hierarchy and that need hasn't yet been fulfilled.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  It has more to do with the idea that authorities will decide what they want to do then recruit words from anywhere they can find to justify it, than it has to do with what those words say. (See also: Crusaders using Jesus as a rallying symbol for mass killings of civilians, 1920s American eugenicists using the science of heredity to justify racism followed by 1930s Nazis who developed on the theme, 1980s Regan administration selectively using basic economic ideas to dismantle public welfare, while staying silent about corporate welfare.)
  - blowski 4y ago
    Is that behaviour limited to authorities? Teenagers frequently do the same thing.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      It is limited to authorities in the history books because by definition when non-authorities do it, it doesn't go very far. :-) No matter how much a medieval peasant hates the Franks, nobody will ever know.

sfink 4y ago

The pyramid implies (to me, at least) that the lower layers are absolutely necessary for the next layer up. It appears that Maslow himself wasn't so absolute about it, and referred to the degree with which lower-level needs were fulfilled. It is arguable that the "absolute" interpretation is not fundamental to either the pyramid or the hierarchy. It's still probably a good first order approximation to get the point across: you're gonna have trouble with upper layers if you have any serious deficiencies in lower layers.

crate_barre 4y ago
the lower layers are absolutely necessary for the next layer up. So to counter the idea, all you really need to do is find examples of self esteem and self actualization before achieving the physical needs.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  They are absolutely NOT necessary. Otherwise a monk with perfect self-actualization would lose all that when their monastery burns down. I’m fairly confident that isn’t the case. Instead shelter becomes a dominant motivator, but they still self-actualize just fine.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

kashyapc 4y ago

The pyramid does confuse and muddy the waters a lot. Scott Kaufman's post[1] on his "sailboat" metaphor unpacks the problem well: The familiar pyramid shape suggests that once we complete each step, we’re done dealing with that need forever. As if life were a video game, and once we complete each level, we unlock the next, with no looking back. It’s an appealing concept. It’s also a gross misrepresentation of the humanistic vision that propelled Maslow’s work. Maslow emphasized that we are always in a state of becoming and that one’s “inner core” consists merely of “potentialities, not final actualizations” that are “weak, subtle, and delicate, very easily drowned out by learning, by cultural expectations, by fear, by disapproval, etc.” [1] https://scottbarrykaufman.com/sailboat-metaphor/ https://scottbarrykaufman.com/sailboat-metaphor/