11 ms·
The missing apex of Maslow's hierarchy: self-transcendence
- ada1981 3y agoIt was never a hierarchy though, that was someone later who misrepresented his work and that version was popularized.
- henry2023 3y agoHere is the original work[1]. And not only the hierarchy is never mentioned. Also, the whole publication is just an essay that lacks any kind or form of research. [1] https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm
- mhb 3y ago> And not only the hierarchy is never mentioned That's absurd. The entire essay describes the hierarchy.
- throwaway18536 3y agoThe whole essay talks about various hierarchies, literally the defining theme is hierarchy of motivation
- readthenotes1 3y agoThank you for the link, but I'm curious why you didn't read it yourself before you made your assertion? "But what happens to man's desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled? At once other (and 'higher') needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still 'higher') needs emerge and so on. This is what we mean by saying that the basic human needs are organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency. "
- layer8 3y agoHe never represented it as a pyramid, but he clearly described it as a hierarchy.
- ada1981 3y agoYes, I mispoke and used hierarchy interchangeably with pyramid. https://ndisisnd.medium.com/maslow-didnt-create-the-pyramid-391c285fc6c https://ndisisnd.medium.com/maslow-didnt-create-the-pyramid-...
- klyrs 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- laurex 3y agoWorth reading for historical context on Maslow and his re-interpretation of an existing framing https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-06-18/the-blackfoot-wisdom-that-inspired-maslows-hierarchy/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-06-18/the-blackfoot-...
- illuminant 3y agoBehold, the lightning is the ascendency of Man. - Zarathustra
- Y_Y 3y ago"Why did the ghost cry: 'It is time! It is the highest time!' For WHAT is it then--the highest time?"-- Thus spake Zarathustra.
- freitzkriesler2 3y agoI too want to ascend like Daniel Jackson.
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoThe recent post about Pong reminded me of Oma and Anubis locked in eternal battle. Lots of Stargate on the brain around here today.
- jakubmazanec 3y agoMaslow's hierarchy is irrelevant today; even 50 years ago (!) the research found it's not a very good theory [1]. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0030507376900386 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003050...
- Loughla 3y agoI feel like any research into this would be purely hypothetical? How would you even test that?
- jncfhnb 3y agoSee if it rigorously predicts people’s priorities absent of the listed steps?
- Vecr 3y agoIt's possible it's supposed to be normative though, obviously people don't run decision theory directly on the output of Solomonoff induction using a pre-programmed or learned utility function, but it's what they should do (but they can't, because it's not even computable). It's the theoretical perfection that all practical systems should attempt to approximate.
- jerrygoyal 3y agoi found it relevant to me
- mif 3y agoSame here. I find it relevant because it creates an awareness of where I am in my current state of mind. I also think I can derive a morality from it, or at least some personal values of mine. I don’t know how to describe it properly, though.
- wslh 3y agoThis is the article openly available [1]. [1] https://larrybridwell.com/Maslo.pdf https://larrybridwell.com/Maslo.pdf
- smitty1e 3y agoMaslow seems to have re-invented the Tripartite Soul[1]. Transcendence is what one obtains via the community of faith. The materialists will reject this answer, yet fall short of offering an explanation for life beside "bag of electric meat". The idea that existence must fall entirely within the scope of human existenceis the bugaboo. [1] https://www.classicalstuff.net/episodes-1/2017/10/31/episode-1 https://www.classicalstuff.net/episodes-1/2017/10/31/episode...
- patcon 3y agoI don't think I'm a materialist, but I downvoted you because "bag of electric meat" just radiates a silly smugness that overrides whatever other value your comment offered. Can't say why others might be downvoting though
- 082349872349872 3y agoI actually like "bag of electric meat", but as it's redundant, I prefer "ugly bag of mostly water".
- smitty1e 3y agoI was just grateful for some feedback pertaining to the down vote. Not quite sure how one takes a euphemistic phrase and gets "smug" out of it. However, the reader has the right of it.
- patcon 3y agoI appreciate your followup comment. Perhaps I misread your tone. As someone else said, it just sounded so silly that it seemed to lampoon the perspective of those who supposedly hold it. It felt like caricature -- like the written equivalent of me doing an impression of a Christian while crossing my eyes and saying in a doofy voice "I believe in the magic sky-man", where obviously their conception of god could be given a more charitable viewing :)
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
- 082349872349872 3y ago> Maslow felt we needed to transcend thoughts of ourselves as islands. We had to see ourselves as part of the broader universe to develop the common priorities that can allow humankind to survive as a species. If you'd prefer the 19th century's expression of this ideal to the 20th's, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_education#Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_ed...
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoDon't people transcend themselves at all levels of Maslow's hierarchy? E.g. when starving people portion out food among themselves instead of hoarding it.
- CrypticShift 3y agoGood Point. Even animals "self-trancend" for their family/herd. it is instinctual. Most Humans "self-trancend" for their tribe/nation. it is emotional (+ instinctual). But it is not really "self-transcendence" as posited here: universal and mindful (to not say "intellectual").
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoThis doesn't belong at the top of such a pyramid as it too has debased forms (e.g. paternalism or savior complexes). And more importantly has a focus on each of the levels, with some people transcending to meet physiological needs of all, others safety needs of all, yet others focusing on belonging or esteem needs, and other trying to enable people to self-actualize or transcend. Self-transcendence is on the side of the hierarchy of needs, though admittedly a person isn't going to be very good at self-transcendence if they are starving or aren't educated. I think this drive of self-transcendence guides many people whenever they are at the various levels. Though admittedly some people get all the way through a Ph.D. without really having a sense of meaning or purpose, I think this kind of trajectory is in the minority and most of us mix it up a bit.
- broscillator 3y agoI think if you view the pyramid as blocks you're being a bit simplistic. All aspects of the pyramid are present at all levels, what the pyramid represents is what you have to free yourself of in order to truly and wholly endeavor in each stage. You can act with self-transcendence even if you're starving, but you can't direct as much thought, time and energy towards it unless you cover the underlying needs.
- 3y ago
- roenxi 3y agoIt isn't possible to exist as an ego without some form of spiritual belief. Existing as some sort of 'happy' ego, insofar as that is possible, requires that to be developed. Even if it is as simple as we float along responding to instincts - sometimes we have to make choices about what instincts to enable and to make such a decision we need faith-based assumptions. If a model like Maslow's hierarchy is useful, it is reasonable to add in a spiritual layer. However, anything related to faith is automatically controversial. --- This comment does not assume an organised religion is involved.
- herval 3y agoWhy not? Why would one require faith at all to define themselves in life?
- roenxi 3y agoWell, I can't think of a theoretical way to do it and I've never met or heard of anyone where a good argument doesn't eventually reveal some incompatible value judgements that are not based on objective truth. So I'm going out on a limb and saying it is probably not possible to have opinions or make choices without having arbitrary values and beliefs. If nothing else, we clearly don't physically exist for most of eternity and any action taken to delay inevitable death is so logically futile doesn't make any sense to do so without some sort of faith-based leap. You'll notice in most religions the conversation is some variant of: "don't commit suicide" "why not?" "God said so. Live.".
- jncfhnb 3y ago> If nothing else, we clearly don't physically exist for most of eternity and any action taken to delay inevitable death is so logically futile doesn't make any sense to do so without some sort of faith-based leap. What about “I enjoy living”
- roenxi 3y agoThen congratulations; you've started to tease out the framework that makes up your own personal faith. Based on what you've said so far you aren't a committed Buddhist (their official answer afaik is "to reduce the suffering of others" and they view "because I like living" as a misguided justification).
- neilv 3y ago> At the end, she came away convinced that the most serious problems facing humanity aren’t technical: Although engineering our way out of trouble is possible, it can’t happen until we transcend ourselves, seeing beyond our own individual well-being to the needs of us all. Hasn't this been obvious and practiced in various ways by many/most people, for millennia? Are they talking about something different?
- kevinventullo 3y agoYeah, I don’t think the people trying to build, say, quantum computers are doing so out of some perception of benefit to their immediate well-being.
- reify 3y agoThe old Maslow’s pyramid fantasy I was a practising psychotherapist for over 25 years. Never once have I seen a Self-Actualized person. Self-Actualization is a goal that can never be achieved. Having met our basic needs at the bottom of the pyramid, having worked on our emotional needs in its middle and worked at achieving our potential. That statement does not represent any sample of human beings currently living on earth.
- greyface- 3y ago> I was a practising psychotherapist for over 25 years. > Never once have I seen a Self-Actualized person. Would a self-actualized person seek psychotherapy? This perception could be due to sampling bias.
- justanotherjoe 3y agoi assume he meant in his office and in his life, both.
- m463 3y agoI know plenty of people who are self-soveriegn. As an example, I remember a friend of mine started working on cars with his buddy. They finally got to an old vehicle they took all the way apart and put it together. He had gotten to the point where he could pull the engine and put it on a stand, weld things, paint, redo the wiring harness, and more. I recall one day I went and looked at it and he sort of casually said, "I can do anything". He wasn't bragging, or deluded. He had just sort of reached somewhere or something and was sort of balanced.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Vecr 3y agoNeither have you met someone who can move 50% of the probability mass in their world model probability distribution with every bit of information they receive, but that's theoretical perfection. There are things that provably can't be achieved, but are still worth approximating in the best way that you can.
- lincpa 3y ago[dead]
- em-bee 3y agoi have difficulty seeing the hierarchy. to me self transcendence is closely linked to belonging. i can't have family, friends or a community unless i care about them and not only about myself. moreso, caring about others is what creates that belonging in the first place. so while basic needs are kind of a foundation, it seems that the other needs are more or less in parallel on top of that. also, another thought is to look at needs not from an individual perspective, but from a community perspective. once you have achived belonging, it is the belonging and the community that ensures your basic needs. when i am homeless and hungry, i don't automatically ignore the needs of my family and community in order to get food and shelter. in fact losing family and community is part of what causes me to be homeless and hungry in the first place. so i can't have food, shelter and protection unless i transcend and care about my community, or, in reverse i care about family and community because they provide food and shelter
- apantel 3y ago[flagged]
- broscillator 3y agoI'd disagree a bit. Family and friends are centered around a self. There's millions of people who are super generous towards their circle yet assholes towards strangers. I think seeing strangers with more generosity is transcendent. In fact I'd say this concept is strongly related to how you behave precisely when there's no belonging: to those that don't belong in your perceived group and when you don't feel like you belong in a group.
- em-bee 3y agotrue, that's a good point. i didn't grow up with much of a supportive family myself, on the other hand i come from a country with strong social support, so i tend to focus more on the outer society myself, also my social network depends on the openness of strangers. you are right, transcendence of self needs to reach everyone, and especially the outsiders.
- megamix 3y agoKind of religion, just thousand of years later. Modernity runs in circles imo and loves to label old things in modern terms. Mankind cannot continue to sell itself to short term careers. Thankfully farmers (I think) and others that choose to live outside the grind are on the right path. We can pretend in the modern world that we don't need anything with the soul or religion. But in the end we will find it.
- wesapien 3y agoNoreligion practitioners conduct themselves similar to people with trad religions. They developed their own cultures and communities. They have new gods. Their enemies are everyone else worshipping old gods.
- losingmyrlgn 3y ago>> Noreligion...They have new gods Kind of contradictory, isn't it? By the way, who are they?
- bizzletk 3y agoWell I used to stand for something Now I'm on my hands and knees Traded in my God for this one And he signs his name with a capital G https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGsw-tlSo2Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGsw-tlSo2Q
- wesapien 3y agoWell atheists say they have no gods but behave in ways that is similar to pagan worship. Like their property, technologies, celebrities, CEOs, identitties, wealth, fictional characters, themselves...
- broscillator 3y agoTechnology, materialism, science. The currents of thought that move us based on perceived value and belief, and where myths and assumptions stem from. A popular creation myth at the moment is simulation theory. Reducing consciousness to material data-processing is a way to believe there's a possibility of life after body-death. A popular "promised-land" myth is that technology will save us. The assumption that mind stems from matter is so commonly beheld that people take it as fact, in the same way some people take god as a fact, unquestioningly.
- mvkel 3y agoMaslow never described his needs hierarchically. The whole "pyramid" thing came from some consultants in the 1960s who misinterpreted Maslow's writings. Makes it hard to take this article seriously.
- lifeline82 3y agoThanks I just connected to write that, but you were first.
- Pete_arten 3y agoDo you have a source for this?
- mvkel 3y agohttps://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/who-created-maslows-iconic-pyramid/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/who-cre...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Llamamoe 3y agoHe never followed any scientific method or tried to do a good job either. The Maslow's hierarchy of needs is literally just some random dude's harshly biased opinion that somehow became a huge part of our popculture, and this peeves me no end. It's not even good.
- 3y ago
- justanotherjoe 3y agoThe whole thing is best summed as 'whatever you have, you will always want something else.' Even if you have self-actualization, which a psychotherapist in here say isn't even really achieveable. Ultimately you'll realize that you want something that is impossible, like changing the immutable aspects of you ('transcendence'). There is no real shift between self-actualization and transcendence. Just wanting more to be above your peers, from being at the top of the hill (self-actualization) to being at the top of the world, for all time (transcendence). It's all still in the framework of competition.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- arketyp 3y agoI take your point about feelings of communion being a kind of self-preservation, but I think it is taking it too far to extrapolate competition into that realm. That's per definition not self-transcendence according to how it is described in the article.
- broscillator 3y agoThere's no immutable aspects of you. Everything is constant change. The illusion, the impossibility that you speak of, is this belief in immutability and the craving for it.
- HankWozHere 3y agoCould not agree more. Be Happy. Be peaceful. Be liberated.