I'm an upper level undergrad studying psychology (after doing a degree in math), having taken a few upper level courses on abnormal psychology and clinical psychology already. One of the issues that bothers me is all the focus on need-based views of human beings. It bothers me because a lot of them seem more "well-intentioned" than scientific. It seems to me that the humanistic view came out as reaction to dehumanizing view of people at the time in the larger culture and society, and also other psychological theories like behaviorism, but that it does not have the strong empirical support many other theories have. In reviewing the literature, I have come across several dozen so-called "needs" and I can not find any conclusive evidence for which is more important or fundamental or even what a need actually is. Is it more like a preference, a drive, a desire? Is a psychological need the same as physiological need, like need for food or oxygen? Obviously not. Should an unfulfilled need lead to death or is it enough to throw the body off emotional balance (happiness? peace?), like lead to distress or discomfort, for something to be labeled a need.
I wish the various things labeled as needs by various researchers or well-wishers could be operationalized in much easier way. I mean think of need for power. Or freedom or autonomy. They almost sound like the kind of thing a scholar in in a religious, political, or philosophical program would study. Like they are value judgments. Imagine a study showing that people don't have a need for freedom. Are we gonna go back to slavery?! This is just the kind of culture and society we live in, we believe in certain things, we want to empower people, help them become freer, more autonomous. But let's not call this science, not good science, not yet. If I am right, and that's a big "if", then all therapy is doing is prescribing the status quo as solution to personal distress.
Sorry if my post sounds harsh, I actually almost fell in love with need-based theories originally, and I so wish that Carl Rogers and Maslow and others actually had done major studies on their views, the kind of expensive studies we do on drugs, so that we had a much better understanding of what our psychological needs are, and how to meet them, and have conclusive evidence to back us up.
I wish the various things labeled as needs by various researchers or well-wishers could be operationalized in much easier way. I mean think of need for power. Or freedom or autonomy. They almost sound like the kind of thing a scholar in in a religious, political, or philosophical program would study. Like they are value judgments. Imagine a study showing that people don't have a need for freedom. Are we gonna go back to slavery?! This is just the kind of culture and society we live in, we believe in certain things, we want to empower people, help them become freer, more autonomous. But let's not call this science, not good science, not yet. If I am right, and that's a big "if", then all therapy is doing is prescribing the status quo as solution to personal distress.
Sorry if my post sounds harsh, I actually almost fell in love with need-based theories originally, and I so wish that Carl Rogers and Maslow and others actually had done major studies on their views, the kind of expensive studies we do on drugs, so that we had a much better understanding of what our psychological needs are, and how to meet them, and have conclusive evidence to back us up.