CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Ever since I was introduced Maslow's Trangle a year ago in school, I always pondered if it were true or not, especially if it involves every single individual on this planet. Study the triangle if you are not familiar with it.

Picture is also available Here if it does not appear in the post.


Essentially, Maslow's Triangle states that we must have the needs on the bottom fulfilled before we can have the next level fulfilled. I must first have my physiological needs met before I can have my safety needs met; then I must have my safety needs met in order to have love/belonging needs met. Likewise I would probably be focusing more on my physiological needs before my safety needs if I ever were in a crisis.

Would you agree with this triangle? Part of me is 50-50. Is it possible for there to be a homeless person that is self-actualized? I believe so. For example: Lets say there's a homeless woman who does not have her physiological, safety, and belonging needs met, yet perhaps she is a Christian, so she is self-actualized and has self-esteem. Would that not make sense?

However, on the flip side, could Religion (ie Jesus) be a factor in providing physiological, safety, and belonging needs? And also, are there other examples of someone having self-actualization, but not having lower needs met first?

One example I can think of would be Tom Hanks in the movie Cast Away. (Spoiler warning) In the end he doesn't belong anymore. He lost his fiancee to another man due to being stranded on an Island for four years. However, is he self-actualized? Or does he do, in fact, find belongness or love from other means?

Or here's another idea, what if Maslow's Triangle only works on certain individuals? Perhaps individuals of Culture A are more receptive of this Triangle as opposed to others of Culture B.

So anyway, I'm wondering. Do you guys agree with Maslow's Trangle? If so, why or why not?

I think that this theory is useful for understanding sociological interactions but fails if applied too specifically and probably wasn't intended to be used in such ways (though I haven't read much of Maslow's general commentary on the hierarchy).

For example, if you are almost starving and someone threatens to kill you, the death threat will take higher priority for the moment despite being placed lower on the hierarchy. Or to give a more positive (and seasonal) example, in A Christmas Carol the Crachett family didn't have the bottom two needs fully met but did have some of the higher rungs.

To quote my psych book:

"Maslow's hierarchy is somewhat arbitrary; the order of needs in not universally fixed. People have starved themselves to make a political statement. Nevertheless, the simple idea that some motives are more compelling than others provides a framework for thinking about motivation, and life-satisfaction surveys in 39 nations support this basic idea (Oishi & others, 1999). In poorer nations that lack easy access to money and the food and shelter that it buys, financial satisfaction more strongly predicts subjective well-being. In wealthy nations, where most are able to meet basic needs, home-life satisfaction matters more. Self-esteem matters most to in individualist nations, whose citizens tend to focus more on personal achievements than on family and community identity."

-Exploring Psychology 6th Edition. David G. Meyers


In other words, I agree with UC.

[quote="ikimasu"]To quote my psych book:

"Maslow's hierarchy is somewhat arbitrary]

We read a lot of Meyer's textbooks in college, and he's pretty reputable in Psychology, and isn't hostile to Christians like many in Psychology are. Maslow was always geared more toward North America than, say Africa or Asia geographically. The basic premise, though, generally, is quite accurate.

Hmm. You all have good points, and I would have to agree with you guys there. (Except for Josh Christopher's post lol)

I think that this theory is useful for understanding sociological interactions but fails if applied too specifically

I see. But I wonder what the limit is, and how specific is too specific? Or maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding what you said.

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:Hmm. You all have good points, and I would have to agree with you guys there. (Except for Josh Christopher's post lol).

You're just rejecting scientific fact that's right in front of you.

Joshua Christopher wrote:You're just rejecting scientific fact that's right in front of you.

Don't worry i agree with your theory I mean halo Should Be at the top but oh well

I've also seen/heard an argument for the Maslow Hierarchy where the pyramid is reversed, and 'self actualization' is on the bottom and 'psychological' on the top. Not arguing as to whether it's correct or not, but it is another way of looking at it.

So Freud was basically right,it all comes down to SEX!

mitsuki lover wrote:So Freud was basically right,it all comes down to SEX!

Uhm... how does Maslow's Triangle relate to sex?

I assume he was simply referring to the fact that "sex" is listed in the bottom tier (and also the middle one).

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:I see. But I wonder what the limit is, and how specific is too specific? Or maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding what you said.

I would say it isn't so much a continuum with a dividing line but a way of using the hierarchy. To speak in general about human needs is a good use, but it is too specific to say "Person A will be more concerned about X than Y."

soul alive wrote:I've also seen/heard an argument for the Maslow Hierarchy where the pyramid is reversed, and 'self actualization' is on the bottom and 'psychological' on the top. Not arguing as to whether it's correct or not, but it is another way of looking at it.

That's an interesting position. I can see how that might be useful, though I think it is fairly true that we don't deal with issues of self-actualization while lower tiers are deficient.

uc pseudonym wrote:I assume he was simply referring to the fact that "sex" is listed in the bottom tier (and also the middle one).

Right. But I was never under the impression that it all came down to sex. So I guess he was just making a joke.

I would say it isn't so much a continuum with a dividing line but a way of using the hierarchy. To speak in general about human needs is a good use, but it is too specific to say "Person A will be more concerned about X than Y."

Ahh okay. That's what I thought.

That's an interesting position. I can see how that might be useful, though I think it is fairly true that we don't deal with issues of self-actualization while lower tiers are deficient.

Looking up wikipedia. I found something similar of the sorts

Nevis’ Hierarchy of Human Needs By comparing cultural assumptions underlying Chinese management practices with those underlying American ones, Nevis constructed a Chinese hierarchy of needs:

Self-Actualization
Safety
Physiology
Belonging

I guess thats one example that sort of "counter-acts" Maslow's Triangle.

Acceptance of facts and problem solving are sort of important if you dont have the bottom two levels. So I guess I would say that he had it right for people who know they can/do have all of those. I think uc was close. You could say Person A, in this situation, will be more concerned about X than Y.

Maslow's Hierarchy of needs is too rigid to be applicable to all people under all circumstances. It works as a general rule or basic set-up, but people but people are by no means restricted to it. For example, people going on hunger strikes to make political statements. I agree with it only to the point where it encounters reality and stops being hypothetical.

I think that it is basically true, in terms of predisposition, unless you have strong convictions. Religious beliefs often lead people to behavior that is not natural to man, such as those who starve themselves (or even down to fasting) for a specific cause, or can love when they have nothing. It isn't natural, but it comes from strong convictions. We would all say that the martyrs thrown to lions and gladiators in rome because they wouldn't deny their faith, those burned at the stake because they wouldn't deny their faith, it comes from something they are totally convinced of - something more important than their lives to them. This is one area where Maslow comes in to question. But again, just because there are exceptions, and sure, it doesn't fit for everyone, doesn't mean that it is totally invalid and should be thrown out altogether. It is still taught for a reason.

Maslow's triangle is a heuristic at best. There are some people who forego baser needs to pursue things that are higher, sublime; think about the monk who makes a vow of poverty to seek God or people who go on hunger strikes (or even die) to champion causes.

Psychological Science 2ed M. Gazzaniga, T. Heatherton wrote:Maslow's need hierarchy... is generally lacking in empirical support. Independent of whether one needs to be self-actualized [that's the top of the pyramid--me] the ranking of needs is not so simple as Maslow suggests.... therefore [it] is more useful at the descriptive level than the empirical level. It does, however make the important point that some needs are more compelling than others and are therefore stronger motivators.

I dunno, but I know...

we all wanna be looooved.... yeaaaaaaahh.... nothing wrong with a little respect... we all wanna be loooooved.... ooooooooh... tell me what's wrong with that?!

Generally if people have their needs met they aren't concerned at all with them. The needs up to love are all met which is why everyone is seeking love. In a general sense it's correct then, but im not sure if it works on specific cases or not.

In the example of fasting how can one fast if they do not have the neccessary food requirements met so that they can eat if they choose to? Could it then be argued that fasting for a cause means that you do have the food requirement met because you know you can eat whenever you want to? Wouldn't food be a much greater concern for someone who didn't know whether or not they could eat than for someone who knows they can?