Embarrassed_Union_96

Embarrassed_Union_96 t1_iwvb1km wrote

The first question you ask at the end encourages people to come to their own conclusions in a sensationalist way. The second one diminishes the value of a democratically elected public office’s election process——which is the same process shared by all other elected positions.

We live in tough times. It’s okay to accept news we’d rather not see or hear, even if it feels like it’s delivered in a way that makes things worse. As long as it’s factual, it’s okay. If we can’t accept facts, and we suppress their sharing by devaluing them though sensationalist invocations, then things will only get worse.

1

Embarrassed_Union_96 t1_iu5g1kv wrote

You can’t tout your support of Maslow’s and then turn your back on it at the same time expecting to win with your assertion just because it’s not working out for you when you need it to.

Completed Maslow’s includes transcendence. My work doesn’t support the transcendence in his style. Which is what you said. The meditative stuff. My work is practical and more focused on the bill paying to survive perspective.

Happy to share more. Just let me know.

2

Embarrassed_Union_96 t1_iu598xt wrote

If you knew what Maslow’s is you’d know it’s not something psychologists rely on 100% because it isn’t accurate enough to help address people’s needs.

I actually do research on addressing this issue with Maslow’s.

Also there’s a cultural disconnection between fulfilling needs and actualizing to experience transcendence. Such disconnects manifest in you belief that people are actualizing under the circumstances described in the other comment.

EDIT) You’re also describing actualization from a materialistic perspective——extrinsic motivations. Which isn’t accurate for all people. This is why I’m saying it’s board room talk. Executives often see people in this light. It’s a cultural projection symptomatic of a disconnect with humanity’s complex motivational nature. It’s short sighted.

2