Sunday, May 13, 2007

Maslow's heirarchy of twaddle

Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" is nonsense unsupported by experiment. Question: Do people turn to religion when they are fat and happy, or desperate, hungry, and tired?
Some other things in the same pile: "outside-the-box" creativity builders, emotional and multiple intelligences, Bloom's Taxonomy, Freudianism, Myer's-Briggs types, and the right-brained/left-brained dichotomy.


Karen Ahlstrom said...

I totally agree about the multiple intelligences and personality tests. I have never gotten a definitive answer off of any of those tests. Perhaps it's because I don't always feel the same about things. I am very shy, but I want and need to be around people. I like to be a leader, but it's easier to follow, etc. Also, the testing situation is false. I know I'm taking a test, and so the result I want to get colors my response to the questions (which are pretty easy to identify which trait they're trying to place you in). Maybe if somebody followed me around for a year, and filled in the answers by what they saw me do...they might find something interesting, but otherwise, it can't possibly be accurate.

you're right that people seek out religion when they NEED something, but there is some truth to what Maslow says. I find it really hard to do my best in a calling when I'm sick, or to sit and do scripture study when I feel like my life is falling apart. Mom has a theory that the Church has noticed this, and that's why there's food at every Singles Ward activity (including Sunday block meetings in many wards) It's why Christ fed the five thousand -- hoping that then they could understand some of the deeper doctrines that he wanted to teach.

Karen Ahlstrom said...

by the way, what's the picture of?

D said...

I have no idea what the picture is. Some kind of coral?
Maslow may be right sometimes and wrong other times. The point is he doesn't know if he is right, because he didn't do enough real world tests of his ideas. He just had a plausible idea and everyone assumed he was correct. That's not science.