The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Maslow’s theoretical hierarchy explains much about us.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often portrayed in the shape of a pyramid, with the largest and most fundamental levels of needs at the bottom, and the need for self-actualization at the top

Psychological; safety; love/Belonging; self-esteem; self-actualization.

The most fundamental and basic four layers of the pyramid contain what Maslow called "deficiency needs" or "d-needs": esteem, friendship and love, security, and physical needs. With the exception of the most fundamental (physiological) needs, if these "deficiency needs" are not met, the body gives no physical indication but the individual feels anxious and tense. Maslow's theory suggests that the most basic level of needs must be met before the individual will strongly desire (or focus motivation upon) the secondary or higher level needs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

(Abridged)


But, can we be simply explained away with a simple theory? Or, are we something more?

I think his theory doesn't explain us so much as the way we need to live. There is more to us than what Maslow's theory lays out, and modern psychology has nearly done away with this 'old testament' of human behaviour.

eloquently phrased Ma'am, but you offered no alternative.

You seem to be obsessed with the definition or general understandings of why we do what we do and of who we are as humanity. It also looks to me that you get upset with any answer that doesn't include some grand mystical plan. I could be wrong, just my observation.

Humans are little different than the animals we eat for dinner. We are governed by chemistry and that chemistry is what causes our emotions and actions.

Yes, we can be described, in part, by such theories. We are more as a whole than a single idea as to our psychological nature but we fit pretty nicely into a number of descriptions that deal with multiple aspects of who we are.

I just don't get what else there possibly could be. Either we are here to live life and be apart of something grander (god, universal consciousness etc) or we evolved totally randomly in a random universe and thus have no purpose other than the purpose we give ourselves which is then totally self serving and meaningless except to us.

Either way, we still function on basic principles and because of that we can be defined to large degrees. I see no discomfort with that and no reason to basically ask "are we really that simple?" because in essence, yes we are that simple for the most part.

Humans are different for one reason. Cognition. If it weren't for this, we would be wild animals.

Since we have cognition, we then are much more complex than most other species, except for a few. So to answer the question of if I think we can be explained by a simple theory, my answer is no.

I will say that Maslow does appear to be onto something but there are some many variables brought on by humans that you can't pin a rule on us.

I am not a expert on this subject and these are just my opinions.

It may be outdated but it is a conclusive theory, I am curious as to how one would test it in experiment.

We are not the same as animals, our brains can manipulate energy fields at a quantum level.

Whilst horses also use such fields they cannot interpret the data like a human can. Also, animals cannot reprogram their brains to see in different spectrums, nor have I ever heard of Emf or bio luminescence from an animals eyes.

I need to read up on this theory, is this the same theory of dual stream, many stream consciousness?

obessed Xzavier, no.
but, I feel that we have much to learn of ourselves, before we venture into the cosmos and fukkit up there.

and yes, as theories go about what makes us US, it's still to be beaten.