Hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943) and The Hierarchy of Jungian traits

NephilimAzrael

NephilimAzrael

Regular Poster
MBTI
ENTJ
800px-Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg.png


Here I have provided the graph representation of human needs.
What I forward to you, my fellow MBTI users is that each type as arranged to your typology, is based on the hierarchy of needs for the individual.

For example, I as INTJ have a hierarchy of Ni>Te>Fi>Se
Which may be transcribed to Maslow's theory as:

When I am at the basic needs stage (focusing my attentions on these); I will be using Se in charge, for to attain my requirements.
The base needs to be established before the dominant, auxilliary and tertiary functions can operate efficiently.
Seeing as there are 5 tiers, we may assume that higher order trait function requires physiological and Safety requirements to be attained first. This will be the "Base of functioning".

When I am in an evolving self stage (focusing on bettering my security/place) I will establish the requirements for Identity, belonging and relationships. These functions require me to access the tertiary function of Fi in order to know what is significant to me. What I can use to grow and how to achieve my goals.

When I have achieved both my basic needs and Evolved my self, I will then enter into a state of enhancing my place, resources and then my position. This can spur on the development of Te.
Te makes it easier to judge my environment (internal and external), my confidence triumphs with a certain competence in analysing with how this world works; what can I do to improve the reality where I exist. Te enhances the esteem of my comprehension and operations. With practice, further understanding exponentially increases. This becomes more adept as it becomes practiced. Which brings me to believe, that comprehension becomes pre-conscious. Which draws on the ultimate stage

Self-Actualisation stage:
In this stage, Se has already helped me to obtain my basic requirements for life. Fi has done its work in maintaining this balance, perhaps improving it's reliability also. Te, draws the comprehension of who I am, what I am capable of comprehending and how I can take in more and more information to be utilised effectively. Whereby Ni becomes founded.
My intuition works as a high-powered processing of all the other functions. They are effectively running on a continuous basis and interacting to allow more and more data adjoin into a "knowing".

This is only the first rough hypothesis of this theory, but I would enjoy hearing other members contributions. How does this apply to your functions? Can you relate how your traits work to the theory described?
Is this theory too obvious?
 
THis looks fascinating, with it's words and bright colors. I'll deffinately be looking at it again when I don't have a headache.
 
I believe your theory is flawed. The hierarchy of needs cannot be applied to MBTI so simply. Also, when your needs aren't being met, you are probably more likely to use the four lowest functions, not the four that make up your type. I could be wrong though and it's all very circumstantial. I just don't think it's as straight forward as you have laid out here.
 
Wyote said:
I believe your theory is flawed. The hierarchy of needs cannot be applied to MBTI so simply. Also, when your needs aren't being met, you are probably more likely to use the four lowest functions, not the four that make up your type. I could be wrong though and it's all very circumstantial. I just don't think it's as straight forward as you have laid out here.
Click to expand...

This is why I put it in here. It is only something I put together in my head a minute before posting it, so please keep the criticisms rolling. If you could maybe give me a hand in assessing the other more subdued processes and how they maybe work in relation to the Physiological needs, that would be wonderful.

Remember, this is only a hypothesis. So any further contributions would be great.
 
This is interesting, however I would have thought it would be the other way around, first focusing your attention on your dominant function and then progressing from there. Wouldn't the needs of your dominant function need to be satisied first?
 
Pristinegirl said:
Interesting haha I studied it before when writing an essay on a related topic in psychology !

Please Nephilim could you help me work out which is my 'needs' because I didn't really get how to do so. I'm an ENFP, however only slightly more E (+2%)
Click to expand...

Well, ENFP would be Ne>Fi>Te>Si. Whilst INFP is Fe>Ni>Se>Ti. But as you ask in terms of ENFP, here is what I can apply. You can probably assess this further for yourself on cognitive processes.
So as for an ENFP, you would be attaining your solutions for obtaining what you require (food, shelter, love, self-esteem, creativity) from resources outside of yourself. You may be inclined to perform more with others to achieve these.
In the hierarchy hypothesis, your function for attaining the basic needs is Si. For Evolving or Identifying yourself; Te. For establishing and enhancing your sense of self, your self-esteem, you would use Fi. And finally, as you reach a self-actualisation stage, for harmonising yourself to your environment (internal and/or external) you would use the dominant function of Ne. [see cognitive processes link for descriptions of the traits.]

Your basic needs are listed in the "Physiological" base of the Maslow pyramid. These are what one needs to survive (as you may have already been aware). But for the sake of this hypothesis, I also added "Safety" needs, because of the four traits per MBTI type.

Just keep relating the type functions to the next tier in the pyramid, to how the MBTI traits work for you.

For Example, if your Dominant function is Extraverted or you are Extraverted, achieving the top tier will originate from outside of you.
A vague example of which would be; Fe - when harmony and prosperity is available/probable in moral, creative, problem solving, spontaneous and information gathering situations. All your functions (particularly your dominant function) are working efficiently. If this is not the case, then some of your needs are not being met, and thus, further use of a particular (subordinate) function is required to attain these needs.
 
Quinlan said:
This is interesting, however I would have thought it would be the other way around, first focusing your attention on your dominant function and then progressing from there. Wouldn't the needs of your dominant function need to be satisied first?
Click to expand...

I guess that would be the case once you have developed/established your personality type as a whole. I think I should of probably mentioned earlier that this hypothesis is relative to how the personality develops first, and then how it ensures its own maintenance. In which case, the dominant function would be dominant as a result of integration of other traits under its command. Each time a need is required, the dominant function delegates the appropriate process to attain whatever resource is required. In this sense, each of the subordinate processes are specialised to a field, while the dominant one keeps them regulated, and acts as the nerve centre.
 
Thinking about it I don't really believe in the Heirarchy much at all. Of course everyone must have physiological needs to be satisified in order to be alive but other than that I don't think the heirachy is universal, people often sacrifice safety for love/family.

An Fe dom would probably feel self-actualised when they have fulfilled love/belonging. Each type probably has a unique self-actualisation and won't necessarily have to fulfill the others in order to get there.
 
Quinlan said:
Each type probably has a unique self-actualisation and won't necessarily have to fulfill the others in order to get there.
Click to expand...

That's why I think it's too complicated to try to do this kind of thing. I suppose it could be done, but it would require an analysis of each type. Even then it would vary from person to person I think.
 
Quinlan said:
Thinking about it I don't really believe in the Heirarchy much at all. Of course everyone must have physiological needs to be satisified in order to be alive but other than that I don't think the heirachy is universal, people often sacrifice safety for love/family.
Click to expand...
They sure do, but can you account for why this may occur? One could assume that sacrificing safety for love/family has the self-actualized function of morality. In which case it could be part of the functions maintaining the resources it has achieved.[/QUOTE]

Quinlan said:
An Fe dom would probably feel self-actualized when they have fulfilled love/belonging. Each type probably has a unique self-actualisation and won't necessarily have to fulfill the others in order to get there.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but do Fe dominants also seek the harmony to exist within the environment of their love/belonging? So they may have relationships that give them belonging, but these would need to have respect, purpose, morality, reassurance, compatibility; or they may not be of benefit to the individual.
A home that may be safe for a family, does not guarantee that it will be an environment in which one can feel happy and confident within. Particularly if the interactions between relations is despondent.
 
NephilimAzrael said:
They sure do, but can you account for why this may occur? One could assume that sacrificing safety for love/family has the self-actualized function of morality. In which case it could be part of the functions maintaining the resources it has achieved.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand how you can disregard a lower need to fulfill a higher need, once you reach a higher level do the lower levels no longer matter? I thought if you take out the lower levels then the rest crumbles.



Correct me if I am wrong, but do Fe dominants also seek the harmony to exist within the environment of their love/belonging? So they may have relationships that give them belonging, but these would need to have respect, purpose, morality, reassurance, compatibility; or they may not be of benefit to the individual.
A home that may be safe for a family, does not guarantee that it will be an environment in which one can feel happy and confident within. Particularly if the interactions between relations is despondent.
Click to expand...

Ok I think it makes more sense when I look at just the labels and not the examples given within the pyramid. So self-actualisation could be very different from person to person and some people would have fewer needs within each level than others.
 
Quinlan said:
I still don't understand how you can disregard a lower need to fulfill a higher need, once you reach a higher level do the lower levels no longer matter? I thought if you take out the lower levels then the rest crumbles.
Click to expand...
If you take out the lower needs all together then yes. But one does not normally sacrifice all the lower needs to maintain them, only some or one them. If the higher orders of belonging, esteem and/or self-actualization are some how preserved by doing such, then you are not sacrificing all your needs. They will of course require replenishment at a later stage, but this is under an alternative condition. Chances are, than in giving up some of your own safety for love/belonging, you would require confidence to do so. This would mean that your higher traits would be developed enough to compensate for the discrepancies.



Quinlan said:
Ok I think it makes more sense when I look at just the labels and not the examples given within the pyramid. So self-actualisation could be very different from person to person and some people would have fewer needs within each level than others.
Click to expand...
Now your getting it. The model is a template. There are numerous factors that affect each personalities development. Both environmental and genetic.
 
NephilimAzrael said:
If you take out the lower needs all together then yes. But one does not normally sacrifice all the lower needs to maintain them, only some or one them. If the higher orders of belonging, esteem and/or self-actualization are some how preserved by doing such, then you are not sacrificing all your needs. They will of course require replenishment at a later stage, but this is under an alternative condition. Chances are, than in giving up some of your own safety for love/belonging, you would require confidence to do so. This would mean that your higher traits would be developed enough to compensate for the discrepancies.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thank you, this makes much more sense I will give it more thought. I seem to picture Gandhi (a self-actualised individual if ever I saw one) fasting (neglecting the physiological) to fulfill his higher (moral) needs. Someone who wasn't so self-actualised might not be able to cope without those basic needs.
 
I did something similar awhile ago where I combined Maslow's Hierarchy of needs with chakras. I never conceived trying such a things with cognitive functions. Pretty clever. Ni is such a fun little toy.
 
800px-Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg.png


Thank you so much for taking your time to explain it to me :) I think that it holds some justification to it and is generally true, However I don't think that all elements within a group must be fulfilled before moving to the next. I believe merely one is enough.

In my case, personally I would say it goes like this for me:
Love/belonging - confidence - creativity - achievement.
I could almost live without all of those at the bottom, more or less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top