I've just commented on a post that uses the 'Maslows hierarchy of needs'model. (which is kinda funny , as the author of the post has previously rebuked the idea of hierarchy being 'a thing'...Mmmmm)


![kkk  Copy.JPG](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/lucylin/OgtZxmo4-kkk20-20Copy.JPG)



This is  something that I've written about before , as it seems to be a 'go to' place  for some people - those who try  to substantiate their claims in regards to political, social, or economic theory.

Which is all very well..... apart from one teensy, weensy, problem.
### It's total, and utter... bollocks!

It's an over  simplistic - and woefully incorrect - model.
Therefor, it can only ever be used in context of an over simplistic - and incorrect - argument.

Ok , lets first find out what the conventional 'thinking' is, that goes into the Maslows hierarchy of needs...
##### _Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier model of human needs, often depicted as hierarchical levels within a pyramid. From the bottom of the hierarchy upwards, the needs are: physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization_.
##### ***Needs lower down in the hierarchy must be satisfied before individuals can attend to needs higher up***.
(https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html)
The bold text is part of the definition, but I put it 'in bold'. ..For a reason.
Here's the diagram of the model, to clarify.
 
![kkk  Copy.JPG](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/lucylin/RIl8rWQN-kkk20-20Copy.JPG)

Now, lets destroy it...


_Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs_ says that you can figure out how people will behave simply by looking at their underlying needs. 

Maslow believed that a starving person would find food first, putting aside every other consideration, including social niceties.
He said that things such as 'morality' and 'creativity', 'respect' and 'confidence', could only _be realized_ once the other, 'lower' elements, of the pyramid , were fulfilled first.

One glaring  criticism about the model, is that the hierarchy doesn’t take into account acts of selflessness, bravery, charity and heroism.
A hungry  man can still go to the rescue of a child in imminent danger ( just one example).

_Why would some German citizens hide Jews from the Nazis when their 'hierarchy of needs' had not yet been met?_
 
_Why would the starving soldiers in Japanese prisoner of war camps give up their ***own food supplies*** , to help the weak and dying?_

Many of the best -and most creative- painters and poets in history (those who Maslow would describe as 'self-actualizing') were, in fact, starving and shivering, in some attic, somewhere or other.
_And this was also at the time  when they did their best work_.

#### Creativity is _not dependent_ of fulfilling the underlying 'hierarchies' that maslows model attempts to describe.
(how many talented actors, writers, or musicians  _lost_ their talents - at the very time those underlying hierarchies were met?).
How many rock bands deliver a brilliant -seminal - first album, with the rest of their careers only  being a pale shadow of their former brilliance?

 #### The Spiritual Human.
Maslow misses the whole point with his model. 
He fails to understand - and therefor fails to take into account - one of the most important aspects of _being human_.
The spiritual dimension.

_Humans look for meaning in their lives_ in whatever personal journey that may be for the individual.
It can easily _transcend_  any animalistic drives. 

Morality is not in isolation of hunger, for example (as shown above).
Starving people are not immune to morality, relationships, and connections.

There's a scientific criticism,  published in the 1977 edition of the  journal, “The Annual Review of Psychology”. 
#### Korman, Greenhaus and Badin, wrote that there’s no empirical  evidence to support Maslow’s ideas. 
In fact, they argue, that  ***the empirical evidence points in the opposite direction***. 
Maslow came up with his theories after observing only a handful of people and it lacks _any scientific rigor_.

#### Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


![kkk  Copy.JPG](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/lucylin/nkp1VWkS-kkk20-20Copy.JPG)


Maslow’s idea of 'the hierarchy of needs'  is a good, simplistic starting point -  for those who are trying to understand what drives other people. 
But that's _all_ it does.
_To try and use it in the higher discussions and understandings  of human psychology and behaviors, is an exercise in the ridiculous_.

#### Teaching a five year old to do math is great - and to be encouraged.
Teaching an adult to only accept 'addition' and 'subtraction' in math, as the _whole_ of math - (discounting divisions and multiplications for example) ,  is patently  ridiculous.


##### Backing up an argument by using "Maslows hierarchy of needs" is no different than a child saying 'addition and subtraction are the only math there is'.

Don't be a child in an adults body.

It will only serve to make you look ridiculous.
(and uneducated in the disciplines of critical thinking and reasoning).


![kkk  Copy.JPG](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/lucylin/lx4yEEXq-kkk20-20Copy.JPG)


....I've noticed , over the years,  that those with a socialist perspective, (lefties) love to use 'maslows hierarchy of needs' to back up their points...
It's yet another case of leftist sophistry - and simplistic thought process -  in action... in my opinion.