Occupy Wall Street vs. the Tea Party

Post Reply New Topic

Darling, did you notice the part where I said, "bolding mine"? That means I was bolding sections on purpose. I bolded the section heads to distinguish them from each other, and I bolded the part where it says 'sexual instinct is shaped by competition rather than a need to ensure species survival' because competition is not a physiological need, nor even a physiological want. It is psychological.



Look at the description of said pyramid... notice, "an interpretation...."


That wasn't Maslow's point at all; in addition, I'm sure you know that human companionship is a necessary psychological need? that humans literally go insane when deprived of human company for long periods of time? That isolation is considered torture in most of the world? That's a need, not a want.
Furthermore, lots of Americans don't have even the needs on the base of the pyramid met. Lots of Americans live in food deserts where they can obtain calories but not nutrition; where they 're housed but don't have heat, electricity, etc; where they have space to go outside but are afraid to do so due to crime, pollution, or other issues; and where they fear for their physical safety when they see police officers of a different color (or any police officer at all).

The statement that "the intensity of the human sexual instinct is shaped more by sexual competition than maintaining a birth rate adequate to survival of the species" is unsourced. It does not appear anywhere in Maslow's paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" However, the following quotation is taken from that paper:

"One thing that must be stressed at this point is that love is not synonymous with sex. Sex may be studied as a purely physiological need. [italics mine] Ordinarily sexual behavior is multi-determined, that is to say, determined not only by sexual but also by other needs, chief among which are the love and affection needs."

To be entirely honest I don't understand the statement you had quoted. Sexual instinct is "shaped" by "competition," i.e. selection pressure, in all species that reproduce sexually. "Maintaining a birth rate adequate to survival of the species" is also a form of selection pressure.


I'm pretty sure it says "an interpretation" because the person who created the picture visually modeled Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a pyramid.


What, in your opinion, was his point?


Let's say, for the sake of argument, that human companionship is a need. Does that make it a right, in your opinion? How can something like human companionship ever be a right? You can't force people to want to be with someone. This is an element of what I wish to discuss regarding the idea that "basic needs" should be rights.

I saw a picture of an Occupier with a sign that read "A JOB IS A RIGHT." He wasn't demanding food, shelter, or water; rather, a job. Humans generally want to feel useful, and in our society a job often provides a means of satisfying this desire. But how can a job be a right? You can't legislate that there be a job for every person, much less a job they would actually want to do.

Ok, given that I haven't read Maslow beyond what was required in class, I have to concede the point. However, that supposed 'need' can still be adequately met by masturbation.

I interpreted that, by 'shaped,' they're talking about the proximate (psychology) cause rather than the ultimate cause (evolution).


As it was taught to me, that a person's lower-level needs must be met before they can focus on the higher ones; thus, if we want a society where people in general are thoughtful, rational creatures, then we must create a society where they're not struggling to meet their basic ends.


Oddly, though, it's not a lack of affirming human companionship, but companionship at all that drives people mad. I would say that it's a right not to put people in solitary confinement for long periods of time. Even we aspies can go hang out by ourselves at coffee shops or go on the internet to argue.


I don't actually agree that a job is a right, but I do think that we should work for economic justice (ie, a level playing field) and against economic injustice (catch-22).