Moving on up

[andrewducker]

For those of you that have never encountered it, allow me to introduce Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

The simplest explanation of which is that embarking upon any step on the pyramid without first achieving the previous steps is doomed to failure.

There's a corrolary, however which is that as Maslow's theory was one of motivation, achieving a particular point merely acts as a springboard for the next one. Once you've achieved the basic level of (for instance) food, additional amounts give you a decreasing level of improvement. Having an amazing meal is not as much an improvement over a good meal as having a mediocre meal is over not eating at all.

Which means that this doesn't surprise me at all. We may well have more money than we did 35 years ago, and we may well have a higher quality of loot to play with, but all of this is down at stage 2 of the heirarchy. If we aren't encouraging people upwards, with achievement, respect, creativity, etc. then I don't expect happiness levels to improve.

As the survey says:

The figures follow trends from around the world that show that happiness and satisfaction do not correlate with average income once countries reach "middle-income" levels.
...
The biggest proportional increase in spending has not been on basics like food and drink, but on luxury goods, such as mobile phones, travel abroad, recreational activities, and clothes.
and
And one in six UK adults reported that they suffered from a variety of mental health problems in the latest survey, of which the largest category was "mild anxiety and depression."

which would tend to indicate that we've chipped away at our levels of security (step 1), while people are trying to branch out into new experiences and activities that they can now afford to try. I suspect that some groups are raising their happiness percentage, as they get their basic security and then move up the pyramid, while others are dropping, as they are mired in insecurity and worry.

Comments

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

Is it really a like with like comparison? I'm thinking of the generational aspect: while there are certain things - gadgets - available to me that didn't exist for my parents, the things that they actually had (e.g. relatively secure employment, the knowledge that there was a proper welfare system, comparatively affordable housing.) are things that I don't feel particularly confident of ever achieving.

In some ways I feel the current situation makes it comparatively easy to self-actualise in terms of creativity, academic achievement etc but without feeling terribly secure about some of the lower levels in the hierarchy.

Perhaps there's also a devaluation here: if just about everybody in your circle has a degree, say, does it really seem like much of an achievement?

Or, at the risk of being cynical, "It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail."

Hi

[allorin.livejournal.com]

*wavies*

Hi, you.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

I've often suggested that Maslow's theory provides a useful insight into why people often experience problems managing volunteer-staffed organisations (like, for instance, sf conventions). When people work for a living, they're filling their Maslow needs from the bottom up, so if the going gets tough they have the motivation of, well, needing to eat. Things have to be pretty bad before you leave the job that puts food on the table. But for hobbies and interests, people are motivated from the belonging, esteem and self-actualisation levels, and if things get unpleasant then that motivation goes away and there's nothing to keep them involved.

This, I think, is why people with management experience in paid work can sometimes do very badly running volunteer/fan events. They try to apply management lessons learned with people motivated at a very fundamental level, and don't appreciate that they're now dealing with people who lack that deep-seated tie to the organisation in question.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Maslow's hierarchy is a nice idea, but IIRC it's empirically refuted - people simply don't prioritise in the order he suggests. (As well as being misused to, for instance, justify outrageously patronising attitudes to aid.)

Right with you that reduced security is a big factor in the current misery situation, though.

[andrewducker]

Oh, I don't think of it as being scientifically accurate - it's just a handy bit of imagery - like Myers-Briggs or the like :->