What is the best way to disprove maslow's hiearchy of needs?

Answer 1

Human needs are historical however intuitive. It certainly isn't necessary that a person have air, water, food, shelter, community if for we can conceive of viable substitutions.

Which you can -.-

It just happens to be that any thought experiment negating the necessity of a particular 'need' will end up being facetious given the current historical horizon. But Maslow considers these needs to be INNATE... so he needs to show massive evidence.

I can conceive of living human brains floating in a non-H20 nutritive liquid, hooked up to a machine that generates consciousness for the subject. The 'needs" would then be the relevant environmental factors that sustain life.

Another way to challenge it is to criticize the primacy of some needs over others. I don't know Maslow's method, but it's bound to be clumsy.

Or challenge 'self-actualization' itself. What is this concept? Where does it come from, if fabricated, then what's the justification for it?

For instance, does the view advocate a version of populism by stressing a human need to interact with others? (Certainly we think society is important, but how much of this is bias?)

My understanding of self-actualization is limited, but I think it's completely, stupidly elitist to think creativity, morality, problem-solving etc "self-actualized" attributes are only attainable after other basic needs are met. If anything, these attitudes are fundamental, a total requirement for maintaining life and achieving social status.

Answer 2

I don't know about best, but there's lots of pretty easy ways to disprove it.

Theoretically, a person cannot work on needs of one level until he has satisfied all the needs of the lower levels. This is complete and obvious malarkey.

There are many people who gain respect by abstaining from sexual intimacy. There are many people who seek enlightenment by fasting. And some of the people who have the best self-esteem, confidence, and lack of prejudice that -I- know are also frequently unemployed, on the outs with their family, and in many senses immoral (Aristotle would say that too much openness can be a bad thing).

The whole hierarchy is a quaint idea in a general sense, but there are just WAY too many exceptions to consider it any more binding than the loosest rules of thumb.

Answer 3

You question assumes there are many ways to disprove it and asks which is best. I wonder, are there ANY ways to disprove it. Well, I'd look for a starving person more interested in the meaning of life than in finding a meal. Good luck with that. And remember, Jesus didn't say, go teach theology. He said feed the hungry, heal the sick.

Answer 4

The burden of proof lies with Maslow. Find the empirical supported hierarchy of needs, then you supplant and refute Maslow.

Answer 5

I don't think they can be disproved as they are simply a theoretical perspective that is either useful or not. I don't think Maslow was suggesting they were scientifically factual.

Answer 6

At each and every point. faith potential to bind at the same time the secular with the sacred. At teenager camps we used to apply the pyramid and prepare it to serving others. become attentive to the desires in an area and help people attain the subsequent point.

Answer 7

self actualize by starving yourself. Put "I was right!" on your tombstone

Answer 8

what is your purpose of doing so?....