Aside from not being sure how valid the Maslow hierarchy is
Basically, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a myth, and everyone would be better off forgetting about it entirely.
… critics point to dozens of counter-examples. What about the famished poet? Or the person who withdraws from society to become a hermit? Or the mountaineer who disregards safety in his determination to reach the summit?
Muddying things slightly, Maslow said that for some people, needs may appear in a different order or be absent altogether. Moreover, people felt a mix of needs from different levels at any one time, but they varied in degree.
There is a further problem with Maslow’s work. Margie Lachman, a psychologist who works in the same office as Maslow at his old university, Brandeis in Massachusetts, admits that her predecessor offered no empirical evidence for his theory. “He wanted to have the grand theory, the grand ideas—and he wanted someone else to put it to the hardcore scientific test,” she says. “It never quite materialised.”
However, after Maslow’s death in 1970, researchers did undertake a more detailed investigation, with attitude-based surveys and field studies testing out the Hierarchy of Needs.
“When you analyse them, the five needs just don’t drop out,” says Hodgkinson. “The actual structure of motivation doesn’t fit the theory. And that led to a lot of discussion and debate, and new theories evolved as a consequence.”
Basically, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a myth, and everyone would be better off forgetting about it entirely.
Not necessarily; it depends on what one’s default or alternative theory would be. Let’s be Bayesian, after all.
As I interpret it, “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs” is little more than the claim that people’s goals depend on their internal sense of security and status (in addition to whatever else they might depend on).
When I speak about it, I’m usually talking about something like a spectrum of exogenous vs. endogenous motivation: at one end you have someone being chased by a wild animal (thus maximally influenced by the environment), and at the other, the Nietzschean “superhuman” who lives only according to their own values, rather than channeling or being a tool of anyone or anything else (thus minimally influenced by the environment in some sense, although obviously everything is ultimately a product of some external force).
Not necessarily; it depends on what one’s default or alternative theory would be.
Self-determination theory is the standard alternative theory I usually point to (which also incorporates the spectrum of exogenous vs. endogenous motivation, but which I don’t think the hierarchy of needs as usually conceived does).
Thanks for the link; that’ll be useful to refer to.
Of course, I on the contrary do think the hierarchy of needs is suggestive of this, as evidenced by the fact that I specifically interpreted it that way!
It’s certainly not a myth because it’s a theory (or a hypothesis) which actually exists. Its weak forms are rather obvious, famished poets notwithstanding. Psychology is not physics and should not pretend to be physics, it deals in weak generalizations and fuzzy conclusions. Maslow’s hierarchy should not be thought of as an iron law which applies everywhere to everyone—it’s merely a framework for thinking about needs.
Psychology is not physics and should not pretend to be physics, it deals in weak generalizations and fuzzy conclusions.
Sure, but we’re talking about a theory that isn’t even accepted as a psychological theory: psychologists themselves have examined it, decided there was no reason to believe in it, and moved on.
Basically, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a myth, and everyone would be better off forgetting about it entirely.
Not necessarily; it depends on what one’s default or alternative theory would be. Let’s be Bayesian, after all.
As I interpret it, “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs” is little more than the claim that people’s goals depend on their internal sense of security and status (in addition to whatever else they might depend on).
When I speak about it, I’m usually talking about something like a spectrum of exogenous vs. endogenous motivation: at one end you have someone being chased by a wild animal (thus maximally influenced by the environment), and at the other, the Nietzschean “superhuman” who lives only according to their own values, rather than channeling or being a tool of anyone or anything else (thus minimally influenced by the environment in some sense, although obviously everything is ultimately a product of some external force).
Self-determination theory is the standard alternative theory I usually point to (which also incorporates the spectrum of exogenous vs. endogenous motivation, but which I don’t think the hierarchy of needs as usually conceived does).
Thanks for the link; that’ll be useful to refer to.
Of course, I on the contrary do think the hierarchy of needs is suggestive of this, as evidenced by the fact that I specifically interpreted it that way!
It’s certainly not a myth because it’s a theory (or a hypothesis) which actually exists. Its weak forms are rather obvious, famished poets notwithstanding. Psychology is not physics and should not pretend to be physics, it deals in weak generalizations and fuzzy conclusions. Maslow’s hierarchy should not be thought of as an iron law which applies everywhere to everyone—it’s merely a framework for thinking about needs.
Sure, but we’re talking about a theory that isn’t even accepted as a psychological theory: psychologists themselves have examined it, decided there was no reason to believe in it, and moved on.
Has it been falsified? That is, empirically shown to be not true with regard to large populations (as opposed to individual counter-examples)?
That’s what the quote I posted said; the individual counter-examples are one thing, but the main thing is the complete lack of evidence for it.
Fair point, the quote did say that. Interesting.