Based on his theory of heirarchy of needs, why then would someone stay in an abusive relationship when the need for safety should outweigh the need for love? Or similarly, why would someone skydive, or why do people try to attain higher states of awareness through self-deprivation? How or why can someone jump up the pyramid without fulfilling baser needs?
2007-02-06 06:57:57 · 6 answers · asked by faupauxs 2 in Social Science ➔ Psychology
If there is no jumping up the pyramid, then what about people like Gandhi? Who overcome basic needs in order to achieve a higher state of awareness? What does self-deprivation help us to achieve?
2007-02-06 07:35:53 · update #1
According to Maslow, one cannot 'jump up the pyramid without fulfilling baser needs'. Using this as a theoretical framework, take an example of a drug addict. This person may forgo food in order to get high. This is not saying that this person is self-actualized and therefore at the top of the pyramid. This is saying that drugs, to this person, is a physiological need at the base of the pyramid. People are still individuals, so Maslow's pyramid can be tailored. Staying in an abusive relationship is not at the belonging level of the pyramid, rather it still falls into the personal safety category. For an individual, staying in this relationship is 'safer' than being alone. Risk taking behavior often has the 'illusion' of safety and can classified into the self-esteem category on the pyramid. When trying to classify behaviors according to Maslow, don't think black and white. The physiological category goes well beyond food and water.....
2007-02-06 07:27:00 · answer #1 · answered by Emily 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
abusive relationship = perceived safety. A committed relationship is the only perceived "comfort" or safety zone for this person. That is to say, the person is in a relationship that while flawed (per the adage "nobody's perfect") - nonetheless provides the essentials for that person... The unknown (moving out and starting over) is interpreted as being "half empty" - or even entirely empty - and the person would rather "take the sure thing" - the relationship they are in (along with the income, the shelter, and even the bad meaningless sex). Thus the need for "love" and need for "safety" overlap to an extent - they share similarities... They may misperceive (or even properly perceive) the "love" as providing "safety" so that love = safety.
If the skydiver didn't dive, she would probably die of a heart attack because she really wanted it. So safety is actually in the skydive.
Etc.
2007-02-06 15:12:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maslow puts security above love, so in your abusive relationship example -- a person that is lazy and doesn't want to work and take responsibility for their own security -- might rather get hit on once a day then get out and get a job. Think about it. What abusive relationship problem cannot be answered by getting a job.
Sad but very true --
2007-02-06 15:29:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maslow's heirarchy of needs does not take into account what St Thomas Aquinas deemed 'Apparant Goods' - things that seem like a good thing to the individual, but are in fact detrimental.
We often have positive attitudes about negative things - such as drugs and crime - and our attitudes affect how we behave. In extreme circumstances (such as with depression), we have cognitive impairments (for example, believing that negative events are our fault).
2007-02-06 15:06:04 · answer #4 · answered by muldenthalle 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because maslow theory has loop holes you can override basic needs for needs higher in the hiearchy but if you keep researching you see more updated theories of maslow's
2007-02-06 15:10:21 · answer #5 · answered by teinegurl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People on the sides of both of your questions that bother you don't see your logic--they want to "go for the gold" and get it over with.
2007-02-06 15:05:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋