Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!petsd!peora!jer From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Self-Actualization and Maslow and you.. (long!) Message-ID: <1442@peora.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 09:37:21 EDT Article-I.D.: peora.1442 Posted: Tue Aug 6 09:37:21 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 02:48:03 EDT References: <3065@nsc.UUCP> Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl. Lines: 46 Huzzah for Chuqui (or Ms. Sefton; is that a pseudomym? I am confused.) for pointing out Maslow as the origin of the term "Self Actualization". Sadly, the notion of "Self Actualization" has recently become a sort of elite club which people aspire to join, or claim to have joined; and there are many courses and books that attempt to aid this effort (as well as popular psychologists who have adapted the term to their own ends). As a result, I tend to feel that the term "Self Actualization" has lost meaning, and is almost an empty phrase. I don't agree with Maslow's hierarchy, though. I've always found it ironic that if I mention Maslow, either people don't know who he is, or make vague reference to this hierarchy. While I do think maybe there is a partial ordering of sorts, I hardly think it is a hierarchy. In support of this, you must remember that Maslow throughout his life warned people that he was still evolving his ideas. And, in particular, he warned that his samples were based on older people who had long ago attained this "self actualization," and that thus he had little information on the mechanisms by which it was attained. (This is one reason why people who try to describe means of attaining "self actualization", in my opinion, tend not to accomplish much.) I tend to suspect that, in people who are subjected to less stable environments, elements of this hierarchy get mixed up, so that it is no longer truly hierarchical. This is not to suggest I disagree with the underlying principles, at all; only with this superficial attempt to impose an order on them. One thing in this article puzzles me: > The hierarchical theory of human motivation developed by Abraham Maslow > {3,4,5} is the most paradoxical of all the current approaches to work > motivation. What's this "work motivation"? Maslow had a great interest in creative motivations; he also had a theory of "eupsychian management," which causes his writings to appear mysteriously in the libraries of business schools. Yet, this was a very small part of his interest; recall that he first became interested in this whole subject through his acquaintance with two of his professors, who he perceived to be very special individuals. I don't think he was so concerned with their "work motivations," though, as with them as people as a whole. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642