Oh boy...IDW just brought up the money thing again.

[fireproof78]

A silly concept.

Abraham Maslow was a man who devoted his life to the study of human psychology, and was an esteemed professor at several prestigious universities. He produced several renowned works that still serve as a basis for the study of human needs and social behavior today. I hope you were kidding to be so dismissive of his work. If not, please provide me another theory (of your own) that explains human physiological and social needs in a better way. Again, it's hard to know when someone is joking via the Internet and I apologize if my post appears to make me seem 'sensitive' but I would be interested in your countering theory.

If, however, you did not intend to impugn his work, and are simply trivializing the concept of ranking human needs, I agree.

Not to step on any toes, but I can speak from personal discussion experience that T'Girl is not kidding.

So, I'll just sit here with my popcorn and see where this discussion goes now

 

[CoveTom]

Abraham Maslow was a man who devoted his life to the study of human psychology, and was an esteemed professor at several prestigious universities. He produced several renowned works that still serve as a basis for the study of human needs and social behavior today. I hope you were kidding to be so dismissive of his work. If not, please provide me another theory (of your own) that explains human physiological and social needs in a better way. Again, it's hard to know when someone is joking via the Internet and I apologize if my post appears to make me seem 'sensitive' but I would be interested in your countering theory.

If, however, you did not intend to impugn his work, and are simply trivializing the concept of ranking human needs, I agree.

I find much of Maslow's work to be bunk, though not all.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/positively-media/201111/social-networks-what-maslow-misses-0

 

[IrishNero]

People say the same thing about Freud, and some of it is genuinely bunk. But we all have bad days, right? Sometimes you're the hammer, sometimes you're the nail.

 

[IrishNero]

So, I'll just sit here with my popcorn and see where this discussion goes now

It's going nowhere. I'm too lazy and Maslow is not that interesting to me to devote significant time to. Also, I'm leaving to go to the beach tomorrow morning, so this is going right to the bottom of my priority list in about 15 minutes when I hit the bed.

 

[fireproof78]

So, I'll just sit here with my popcorn and see where this discussion goes now

It's going nowhere. I'm too lazy and Maslow is not that interesting to me to devote significant time to. Also, I'm leaving to go to the beach tomorrow morning, so this is going right to the bottom of my priority list in about 15 minutes when I hit the bed.

I see how we rate on your hierarchy of needs

All in good fun, of course. Have a good sleep

I find much of Maslow's work to be bunk, though not all.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/positively-media/201111/social-networks-what-maslow-misses-0

As with many psychological theories, I find them to be useful building blocks. Maslow's hierarchy provides a good basis and point of reference for many, even if the actual hierarchy varies from individual to individual.

I personally subscribe to a more cognitive-behavioral/integrative approach that allows for flexibility from person to person. If Maslow's hierarchy provides a helpful reference point for a client then I will utilize that tool to address their need.

No need to throw out everything.

 

[IrishNero]

So, I'll just sit here with my popcorn and see where this discussion goes now

It's going nowhere. I'm too lazy and Maslow is not that interesting to me to devote significant time to. Also, I'm leaving to go to the beach tomorrow morning, so this is going right to the bottom of my priority list in about 15 minutes when I hit the bed.

I see how we rate on your hierarchy of needs

All in good fun, of course. Have a good sleep

You too.

 

[C.E. Evans]

And yet, our world is increasingly becoming that way with credit/debit cards, online bank transfers, & direct deposit. More and more people don't even see their money these days as more transactions are done electronically. Trek has shied more away from the idea of physical money, but there has been references of people being charged things and buying things, so some kind of economic system still exists, even if it doesn't involve something we'd recognize.

Yeah. And I still say the replicator IS a form of economy. There are limits to what one can "buy" from a replicator. It's also an economy that is on earth and in starfleet but NOT necessarily the entire federation.

I think the replicator is more akin to how microwave ovens were when they first came out. For quite awhile, not every home had one (and it's still true today in some places). It could even be a case that not everyone wants a replicator because they don't like quality of what they produce (nothing beats the real thing).

That allows the likes of Mudd and Jones to leave and try to get rich through traditional trade.

I thought Mudd and Jones were before replicators became more common, but it could also be because they dealt in a market specifically for non-replicated/non-synthesized items, catering to connoisseurs.

 

[bbailey861]

I find much of Maslow's work to be bunk, though not all.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/positively-media/201111/social-networks-what-maslow-misses-0

As with many psychological theories, I find them to be useful building blocks. Maslow's hierarchy provides a good basis and point of reference for many, even if the actual hierarchy varies from individual to individual.

I personally subscribe to a more cognitive-behavioral/integrative approach that allows for flexibility from person to person. If Maslow's hierarchy provides a helpful reference point for a client then I will utilize that tool to address their need.

No need to throw out everything.

fireproof78, your building block thought is the right idea. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs was taught (I don't know if it still is) on the Canadian Armed Forces Senior Leadership Course back in '92 but it was used just as a starting point for discussion that ended up being tailored around how do we help manage the needs of the individual within the group keeping in mind the greater need of fulfilling the needs of the mission and the service as a whole. It was recognized that a happy soldier, or at least mostly happy, would be a better soldier. Most certainly, individual needs are so varied no no one approach is going to fit the mold but there will certainly be truths found within the framework. This doesn't make Maslow's theories wrong - or bunk - as a whole. It's just that it won't fit the exact mould of someone that they have constructed for themselves.

 

[Autistoid]

As with many psychological theories, I find them to be useful building blocks. Maslow's hierarchy provides a good basis and point of reference for many, even if the actual hierarchy varies from individual to individual.

I personally subscribe to a more cognitive-behavioral/integrative approach that allows for flexibility from person to person. If Maslow's hierarchy provides a helpful reference point for a client then I will utilize that tool to address their need.

No need to throw out everything.

I think the whole point though is it's not science.

It's pseudo science more or less.

It was an attempt to be scientific with no actual set of scientific data(brain scans etc).

Granted it wasn't completely dumb or pointless, however to refer to much pre 1990 as a science is a stretch.

It was a series of hypothesis and theories that proved to be completely wrong.


Real science based pysc is narrowly removed from neuroscience.

 

[Autistoid]

I always found the idea of a world with no money to be utterly stupid. Otherwise, why even have a merit system? Or military rank/pay grade? Or, how do trade exists? Clearly, back in TOS, you had such characters as Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones within the Federation who sought out profit. And there are non-Federation members to deal with, such as the Ferengi (thank goodness for gold-pressed latinum). Now, don't get me wrong. I like the idea that humans of the 24th century believe that perfecting one's self was a much noble proposition than the accumulation of wealth. I fine with that. But I think that the "there is no money in the 24th century" is just another case of GR trying to preach a kind of utopianism that doesn't take into account that greed, not money, is the problem. But, that's just me...

It's well illustrated in the series that privilege is a form of pay.

Captains get better access to everything.

Which is why everyone wants to be a captain in the universe.

Today most adults living in first world conditions value four things that come along with money.

Transport(Cars)

Real estate( Where they live)

Experience(travel, hearing fancy music, skydiving etc)

finally social exclusivity(special access to a place, fame, reptutation, befriending attractive or wondrous people etc.

In the star fleet universe all of these things seem to directly go along with rank.

Star ships are not unlimited, Access to unique places or even a big room on a star ship are coveted, most experiences can only be had through be an officer etc, and even who you meet is based on your rank.

So it'd be easy to see why there is no need for money.

We live in a world where money is used both as a way of managing demand and managing the usage of resources.

Everything we know about the trek universe suggest these two things are split, with demand being managed by merit(rank/position) and resources being managed by those in position/computers.


Picard was offered a position in turning the Mediterranean into land, sisco was offered a job in managing the construction of habitats in orbit. This theme goes on and on.


Resources are not unlimited, they're simply at a higher standard than we are use to.

 

[fireproof78]

As with many psychological theories, I find them to be useful building blocks. Maslow's hierarchy provides a good basis and point of reference for many, even if the actual hierarchy varies from individual to individual.

I personally subscribe to a more cognitive-behavioral/integrative approach that allows for flexibility from person to person. If Maslow's hierarchy provides a helpful reference point for a client then I will utilize that tool to address their need.

No need to throw out everything.

I think the whole point though is it's not science.

It's pseudo science more or less.

It was an attempt to be scientific with no actual set of scientific data(brain scans etc).

Granted it wasn't completely dumb or pointless, however to refer to much pre 1990 as a science is a stretch.

It was a series of hypothesis and theories that proved to be completely wrong.


Real science based pysc is narrowly removed from neuroscience.

I'm not sure I follow very well. It was science in so much as it was a theory, based upon observable behaviors. It wasn't there they were wrong (not entirely) so much as new information was made available and adjustments were made.

That is part of science too-observation. Like I said, it isn't 100% accurate, but that doesn't make it less useful.

At least, from my own theoretical development.

 

[T'Girl]

Maslow's pyramid

A silly concept.

I hope you were kidding to be so dismissive of his work.

I was being dismissive, Maslow's attempt to describe the need of Humans as if there was a generic Human Being who was representational of all Humanity is ridiculous. An obvious example would be that our needs change depending on age, a child's need are considerable different than a young adult, which are different than those of a elder.

There also the absence of the need to form some type of community on the lowest level of his "pyramid," community is one of the things that increases the group's ability to survive and prosper.

Also defining sex as a biological function (somewhat like the need to excrete waste) is highly questionable too.

 

[IrishNero]

OK, I can live with that. I do like hearing other people's perspectives, and sometimes I use a more polite form of 'trolling' to draw that out of people. In actuality, it is highly simplistic to describe human needs in such a way. Interesting perspective!