Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Beyond Gamification. Designing up Maslow’s Pyramid.

<< < (3/11) > >>

Paul Keith:
Debunking self-actualization is certainly an interesting thing especially from a Hindu (Buddhism?) perspective.

My understanding of self-actualization is that Maslow simply meant that when one has met a natural set of needs, then enlightenment can happen which is what self-actualization means.

Example, Gautama achieved arguably the pinnacle of safety, love, esteem that an average being can achieve. With these things in set, then his mind was in a state of peace that he "can" (in the mental sense) drop the lower hierarchies.

Albeit Maslow wasn't insisting on self-actualization as enlightenment but the concept of self-actualization seems to still match with many rich people eventually discovering solidarity or many intelligent people (say programmers and mathematicians) eventually discovering/promoting innovation because many of the lower needs were met by their growth paths that many of those in poverty both mentally and physically had no room to move about on.

This doesn't mean that self-actualization can't be wrong, just showing that the way Maslow sets up self actualization it not only is not determinant on the lower hierarchies being right or wrong, it's still one of the least debunked phenomena there is despite Maslow being flawed in his hierarchy. After all, even today, one can make a case that certain people in power clearly have more influence due to being in universities or having more nurturing/opportunity providing parents. One can also find many examples of people rising through poverty only to maintain their riches rather than reach a state of provision that matches those who truly had more than them though they may be considered rich in their culture.

In some ways, this too is my dilemma with productivity systems. Most productivity tips are written from the perspective where one can be a lifehacker if not an outright possessor of notebooks/pens/PCs and rooms they can call their own. Worse, msot ideas arise not while one is in chaos but where one can simmer and experiment upon impending chaos.

Even in the military or sports, we see elements of one allowing their love to reach towards self-actualization only when one has a way of training in an actual "safe" and "loving" environment and where people most credit a person's esteem is when such static training meets the adversity that is an opponent that which the individual rises over - a scenario which when celebrated raises the esteem of the person and in the end actualizes the self of the person both to himself and to others as proof of said individual's legacy.

Indeed in all scenarios, there seems to be a scenario that matches self-actualization even when the hierarchy is wrong. Say a person who was raised in chaos and finding an opportunity in that chaos which thus then raises them towards the hierarchy of safety and belonging or marines training in sensory deprivation and being unappreciated in the world only to then be thanked for by whichever individual they were tasked to save. A case where belonging does not mean love and low esteem still means self actualization.

- the whole idea is stupid/funny.
--- End quote ---

I apologize. I had originally interpreted this as you saying you have just mentally masturbated on a topic. :P

"Moral marketers" - a novel concept. An oxymoron.
--- End quote ---

Indeed.

Eh? Who is this guy Maslow anyway? 

And who the heck is Nikki?
--- End quote ---

I don't know. I'd rather we find out who we all are.  :P

IainB:
Debunking self-actualization is certainly an interesting thing especially from a Hindu (Buddhism?) perspective.
-Paul Keith (October 22, 2011, 10:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
if you mean that you thought I was trying to debunk self-actualization from a Hindu perspective, I wasn't, as I am too metamotivated to do that (Yeah baby!).    ;)

Having said that, I do rather think that Hinduism has an uphill battle for it to become credible.
In a news item on 14 September 2007, the BBC made a report Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn .

The report was potentially amusing (tongue in cheek) in that it related to a canal-building project and:
"Hindu activists say the canal project will damage Lord Rama's bridge...Hindu hardliners say the project will destroy what they say is a bridge built by Ram and his army of monkeys."
--- End quote ---

Many people apparently actually believe this sort of stuff.
It rather looks as though it's on a fantastic par with Heaven's Gate.

Paul Keith:
Well no but after reading your link, the misunderstanding was well worth it so I change my claim to yes. Yes, I thought you were debunking self actualization from a Hindu perspective.

IainB:
Just thought I'd note what seems to be an unintentionally highly amusing and classic example of action with no basis in proven theory: Effect of One-Legged Standing on Sleep
It seems to me to be a fatuous post and discussion, and looks to be similar to the sort of thing you would be achieving (i.e., nothing) by trying to have a rational discussion where I said:
Thus the thesis of  Nikki Chau's post is definitely invalid to start with, so why waste time discussing an invalid proposition unless it is to explore the reasons why it is invalid? That's arguably likely to be the only useful thing (analysis of reasoning as to why the argument is invalid) that could be gained from discussing it. Otherwise we might be better off - and have more fun - debating (say) the existence of winged fairies (because everyone already knows that the wingless variety exists as pixies).-IainB (October 21, 2011, 05:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

It reminds me of something from a few years back, when I was working on a contract in a country-regional office in the Asia-Pacific region of one of the biggest worldwide IT corporations. At the time, they were were in a big cost-reduction drive. As part of that drive, the CEO had put them on a crash downsizing schedule of 20% headcount reduction worldwide.

The personnel in the country offices I was in were to be moved to newer premises - more modern, and with a smaller square footage and hence lower lease costs - because they were not likely to be needing all that existing space for too long (the 20% reduction).

The trouble was in the timing: they had to vacate the old leased premises they were in before renewal date, and move to the new smaller/cheaper leased premises as soon as possible after taking up the new lease (to avoid paying overlapping annual leases for an extended period). They knew they wouldn't need all the personnel they currently had, in the new site, because they planned to downsize by 20% after moving to the new site (they couldn't complete the downsizing before the move.)

Problem: How were they going to accommodate all those people in the new site, before the planned downsizing and without causing employees to become fearful of losing their jobs? (Experience tells us that, when culling a herd, it is always best not to spook the animals as they can become uncooperative or resisting, and where the animals are humans and can get litigious, it would be downright foolhardy to spook 'em. The management and psychological practices employed in Hitler's notorious mass-extermination death camps have demonstrated some good management lessons in this regard.)

What to do?

They hit on the clever idea of compulsorily introducing stand-up desks and desk-sharing for a large number of personnel/roles, in the existing (old) offices. This was not announced as "being good" for the staff, just that they were "beneficial" and that the office was "being updated to the modern business trend" - and it was true that they were the modern business trend, because businesses had already recognised that stand-up desks helped reduce square-footage lease costs.

The management also cleverly engaged the cooperation of the staff by getting them to view the new site and put forward their views as to how their offices were to be laid out. "Staff representatives" for this were appointed, who gathered their colleagues' views on the matter. It was going to be such fun being involved!
The management used the language of bullshit/ambiguity rather than tell an outright lie and say that it was "ergonomically proven to improve such-and-such" - that would have been a lie because there was no proof.
Ergonomic and work-study research carried out in the '60s and '70s in factory and office environments showed that keeping people on their feet all day long is pretty much guaranteed to produce a range of otherwise avoidable health problems (never mind its effect on productivity), just as packing people/desks into offices as per the old "bull-pens" was unhealthy - and counterproductive. (Fortunately, cattle cannot read and have no sense of history.)

So the stand-up desks were slowly introduced to the old semi-open plan offices, and the offices progressively became a visibly more roomy without all those big ergonomically-designed desks and cubicles cluttering up the place.
And when the move was made to the new and smaller premises, though the packing density of the stand-up desk arrangement was noticeable, it was not nearly so noticeable as it would have been had they retained the old sitting desk arrangement. In any event, no-one seemed to complain, probably because not long after the move, the 20% downsizing plan started to bite and the staff had more important things on their minds than office layout.

The moral of this story is that wherever you find people using the irrational (QED) "the Emperor's new clothes" argument, then beware and hold onto your sense and your wallets.
The probability is that such people are either just plain stupid/ignorant, or - more likely - they are con-merchants wanting to manipulate your perception into accepting/believing whatever they are taking about is valid and a "good" thing to to do.
This may be done unscrupulously, neither knowing nor caring that you ordinarily might not be gullible enough to accept such nonsense, though real conmen are more unscrupulous and know very well that is the case. The motivation is likely to be financial gain on the part of the conman.

Anyway, that's my take on it, after my alien abduction experience.    ;)

IainB:
...as stuff like social media sharing buttons spread around the concept is what then boosted the motivation to develop such concepts as social curation and cross-sharing further than what designers and coders would have intended. (My emphasis.)
-Paul Keith (October 18, 2011, 01:38 PM)
--- End quote ---
I thought this Dilbert cartoon made a good comment on this...speaks for itself really.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page