Anonymous #1 22h

when a post has multiple subjects then you gotta speak in complete sentences if you wanna be at all intelligible. try again

-4

Anonymous OP 22h

I mean to a point it is because reproduction is a necessity for our species

13

Anonymous OP 22h

Op thinks they have main character energy, they don’t.

19

Anonymous #3 22h

it’s patently goofy to suggest that sex is every bit as “motivating” as things you would literally die without. no one is as motivated to fuck as they are to breathe, that’s not difficult to comprehend

-4

Anonymous #2 22h

not at the individual level

-3

Anonymous #1 22h

you must’ve gotten your feelings hurt really badly by One critical comment in order to jump to this kind of assumption about a stranger lmao

-3

Anonymous #1 21h

anyway, I take it what you were trying to say is that you think sex Is a survival need on the same level as water and oxygen, but that’s so absurd that it’s not even worth trying to debate. just makes you sound childishly entitled

-2

Anonymous #1 21h

very thoughtful and intelligent retort on your part, thank you for elaborating

-2

Anonymous OP 21h

being in the same category doesn’t mean they’re equally motivating, Maslow never said wanting sex is as urgent as needing oxygen, have you actually read the original paper? apparently it is ‘difficult to comprehend,’ because that’s not what the theory says

11

Anonymous #3 21h

you mean the paper where sex is listed under the category labeled “physiological needs”, the basics that need to be accounted for before someone can move on to securing a sense of safety? yeah, sex is objectively not a physiological need. you can talk in circles about it as much as you like but the criticism I’m leveraging is not even a particularly controversial one

-4

Anonymous OP 21h

you’re changing the argument, ‘physiological need’ doesn’t mean ‘you literally die without it,’ and Maslow explicitly said the hierarchy wasn’t a rigid prerequisite system, you can disagree with sex being in that category, but that’s not the same as him saying sex is as urgent as oxygen

10

Anonymous #3 21h

“Human needs arrange themselves in hierarchies of pre-potency. That is to say, the appearance of one need usually rests on the prior satisfaction of another, more pre-potent need.” this is from the same paper where the “hierarchy” in question includes sex within the utmost basic tier. he is in fact explicitly suggesting that Getting Laid is “usually” a prerequisite for moving on to getting safety needs met

-3

Anonymous #3 21h

there’s also the fact that all my post said was “Maslow originally included sex in the same tier as oxygen, water and food”, which is a fact, and is merely me criticizing the inclusion of sex in that tier *now* you backtrack with this “you’re free to disagree” shit but for some reason you felt the need to leave a snide comment on a post where disagreeing with his assessment is all I was doing

-2

Anonymous #4 21h

nah, you’re just unwilling to think critically about a theory that’s been so widely taken for granted as fact by institutional forces

-2

Anonymous #5 21h

I really appreciate you stopping by to share such an on-the-nose demonstration of how Maslow’s inclusion of sex at that tier gets converted into justification for incel logic

-3

Anonymous OP 21h

I’m not an incel I lay pipe every day what are you talking about ??

2

Anonymous #5 21h

“incel logic” as in “the thought process demonstrated by incels, regardless of whether or not you are personally ‘involuntarily celibate’”. the idea that if you don’t get laid then you’re being denied some basic human need. the generalized sense of entitlement to sex

-2

Anonymous #5 21h

“I lay pipe every day” is some really embarrassing overcompensation btw 😭 you don’t gotta try to impress anyone with however much sleeping around you do, “I’m not an incel” is sufficient for getting your point across

-2

Anonymous OP 21h

But I don’t feel I’m entitled it’s just survival of the fittest if you don’t have sex you just die. I don’t understand where you derive that I feel entitled I don’t feel entitled to food either, I work for that and try to earn it

4

Anonymous #5 21h

holy shit lmfao, there’s no way you made it to legal adulthood with this kind of worldview still in place… no, people do not die from not having sex. food on the other hand is a basic human right. notice how we have food banks yet we don’t have charity organizations dedicated to making sure people can fuck

-2

Anonymous OP 21h

Well I did make it to adulthood, so what’s up. Calling me stupid off of like three silly anonymous messages is a huge jump in reasoning. I’m not claiming sex is a right you are the one who is saying I think that, also I’m not over compensating I’m just letting you know your definition is incongruent; the worldview of people who don’t have sex can still be held by people who have sex?

7

Anonymous #2 20h

the upvote count on this comment communicates a lot about who is taking issue with my critique and why like if the defensiveness was really about genuine faith in Maslow’s theory (as opposed to just getting butthurt over the idea that sex is not a physiological need when you’ve gotten so comfortable viewing it that way) then this would’ve received pushback for not being relevant to the text itself

-2

Anonymous #5 20h

I’m not saying you’re stupid in a general sense, I don’t know you like that. I’m saying I have trouble believing the stranger I’m talking to is legally an adult when I’m hearing an attitude towards sex that is flatly incongruous with the worldview of an adult with age-appropriate maturity

-2

Anonymous #5 20h

“incel” at this point in time doesn’t exclusively refer to the status of being involuntarily celibate btw, there’s a whole ideology associated with that cultural sphere that’s predominantly defined by a shallow self-centered perspective on sex and gender relations

-2

Anonymous OP 20h

Maslow literally says the hierarchy isn’t rigid, and you’re the one who said sex was ‘every bit as motivating’ as oxygen, that’s the claim I disagreed with

7

Anonymous #3 20h

well no, I said that in a reply to you, because you were dismissing my perspective before I even said that part you keep moving goalposts—first “no, because it’s about motivation”, then “well being in the same tier doesn’t mean they’re actually categorized as needs on the same level” (??), now we’re all the way down to “b-but it’s not, like, rigid!!!” when that’s not even countering anything I said. it’d be fine to just say “ah, I don’t agree but I see what you’re pointing to” and disengage

-2

Anonymous OP 20h

you literally said it was ‘every bit as motivating’ as oxygen, whether you said that in the OP or your reply doesn’t change what I’m disagreeing with lol you’re funny

5

Anonymous #6 20h

exactly lol you explained it very well

6

Anonymous OP 20h

You right though, I’m not a very mature adult. You win 🙌

6

Anonymous #6 19h

“If all the needs are unsatisfied, and the organism is then dominated by the physiological needs, all other needs may become simply non-existent or be pushed into the background. It is then fair to characterize the whole organism by saying simply that it is hungry, for consciousness is almost completely preempted by hunger.” this is from the same paper where he categorized sex as “physiological need”

-1

Anonymous #6 19h

“Human needs arrange themselves in hierarchies of pre-potency. That is to say, the appearance of one need usually rests on the prior satisfaction of another, more pre-potent need.” this conveys that the categories he’s working off of are consciously organized as a hierarchy, where Usually “physiological needs”, which he bundles sex under, are understood to come before the safety needs he lists after the physiological

-1

Anonymous #6 19h

"Undoubtedly these physiological needs are the most pre-potent of all needs. What this means specifically is, that in the human being who is missing everything in life in an extreme fashion, it is most likely that the major motivation would be the physiological needs rather than any others." again, this is in the same paper where he mentions sex amongst what he considers to be "physiological needs"

-1

Anonymous #6 19h

actual quotes sourced directly from Maslow. you’re free to engage in theorycrafting about “what he actually meant”, but there’s only so many ways one can interpret his choice to include sex under “physiological needs”, and even fewer when you take into consideration the actual text

-2

Anonymous OP 19h

you’re very stubborn

3

Anonymous #3 18h

you sound confused. what I’m pointing to is that you were arguing with my interpretation Before I said the part that you now say was the whole of your disagreement (kudos for at least recognizing that this is an issue of you disagreeing rather than one of objectively superior insight on your part). then you circled back and said “you can disagree with sex being in that category” as if that wasn’t all my post was asserting in the first place. you follow now?

-2

Anonymous #5 18h

if you recognize that your worldview is immature, maybe you should be less stubbornly attached to it so that you have the opportunity to like, do some necessary perspective-adjusting rather than continuing to stay stuck where you’re at

1

Anonymous OP 18h

saying i sound “confused” isn’t a good debate tactic lol if you were actually confident in your stance you wouldn’t be insulting people commenting on this post, i’m following this fine and no one agrees with your stance, so i think you’re the one not following, have a good day though and i hope you learn more in the future

6

Anonymous #3 18h

and you aren’t lmao? I’m stubborn because I have plenty of textual evidence to back my take. if there was textual evidence to the contrary then I would be open to hearing that pushback

-2

Anonymous #3 18h

not sure what you mean by labeling that as a “debate tactic”, but you demonstrably Do sound confused about what order this exchange played out in. which is odd to me because you’re just as capable of scrolling up and reviewing it as I am 11 upvotes isn’t exactly “no one agrees with your stance”, but believe whatever you need to 🫡

-2

Anonymous OP 17h

The problem is that you’re treating isolated excerpts as though they establish the rigid, sequential interpretation you’re arguing for, when the actual paper explicitly qualifies that interpretation. Maslow himself says that the hierarchy is “not nearly as rigid as we may have implied.” He specifically discusses exceptions and then says that normal people are “partially satisfied and partially unsatisfied in all their basic needs at the same time.”

3

Anonymous OP 17h

He also explicitly says that a need does not have to be 100% satisfied before another emerges. He describes the emergence of higher needs as gradual, not an on/off transition. And even earlier in the same paper, Maslow says that a single behavior can express or satisfy multiple basic needs simultaneously and that an act typically has more than one motivation. So yes, he describes the needs as hierarchical in terms of

3

Anonymous OP 17h

prepotency, but you’re turning that into a rigid staircase where someone has to completely finish one level before they’re capable of experiencing or pursuing another. That’s specifically not what the full paper says. The physiological needs being the most pre-potent also doesn’t mean every person must be motivated by them before anything else can matter. Maslow explicitly discusses people putting themselves in situations where a more basic need is deprived

9

Anonymous #6 17h

for the sake of a higher one, as well as reversals in the hierarchy. And regarding sex, duh Maslow categorized sex as a physiological need. Nobody is arguing otherwise. But he also explicitly says sexual behavior is “multi-determined,” meaning it can be driven by sexual needs as well as love, affection, or esteem. So, pointing out that he placed sex under physiological needs doesn’t establish the conclusion you’re trying to draw from it.

7

Anonymous OP 17h

You’re correct that these are actual quotes. You’re not correct in assuming that quoting them settles the interpretation. The surrounding text matters, especially when the author explicitly qualifies how rigid the hierarchy is. Finding a quote that supports one piece of your interpretation isn’t the same thing as demonstrating that your interpretation of the theory is correct.

2

Anonymous #6 17h

well no, what I’m doing is citing evidence from the text that backs up what I’m saying. any “excerpt” is necessarily going to be “isolated” because it would be nonsensical to try to copy & paste the full document. I could easily write off your cited quotes the same way if I really felt like being pedantic about it

-2

Anonymous #6 17h

I am not arguing for “rigidity”, I’m arguing that if you’re going to break down human motivation into categorical clusters then those categories require some level of logical consistency. putting sex in the same tier as water, food & oxygen is not logically coherent, and you’re contorting yourself into mental pretzels trying to insist that it is

-2

Anonymous #6 17h

he said the “multi-dimensional” thing about food too (“That is to say, the person who thinks he is hungry may actually be seeking more for comfort, or dependence, than for vitamins or proteins. Conversely, it is possible to satisfy the hunger need in part by other activities such as drinking water or smoking cigarettes.”) so, pointing out that he said that about sex does not establish the conclusion you’re trying to draw from it

-1

Anonymous OP 17h

*multi-determined, excuse me

-1

Anonymous #6 17h

not gonna quote the same segment a third time in this same thread lmao. I’m unsure what exactly you believe the definition of “prepotent” is, but your summary is directly in opposition to the actual text, and I’m not particularly interested in continuing to talk in circles with you when you haven’t given me any reason to value your interpretation over my own criticism

0

Anonymous OP 15h

Prepotent does not mean exclusive, and hierarchical does not mean rigid or sequential. That is the fundamental distinction you keep missing. People aren’t “theorycrafting” when they’re trying to explain that to you. More than one person has now tried to explain this very basic concept to you, and instead of considering that you may have misunderstood the theory, you insult them and insist they’re wrong. Insulting people doesn’t make your interpretation correct.

3

Anonymous OP 15h

You don’t understand the theory, and that’s okay. Nobody understands everything. But at some point, you have to be willing to accept that you might not understand something instead of being hostile toward everyone who tells you that you don’t. If you’re a psychology major, I strongly urge you to switch asap because you were far too close minded, especially when it comes to you being incorrect.

5

Anonymous #6 15h

i second this as a psychology major, having an open mind and understanding how the field is adapting and evolving in real time is necessary to flourish within this field, things are rarely set in stone and it’s necessary to understand nuance, especially if you’re hoping to go into a ‘helping profession’

3

Anonymous OP 15h

It’s incredibly easy to come up with whatever interpretation you want when you don’t actually understand a theory or take the time to read it in its entirety. This is not my interpretation of Maslow’s theory. I’m explaining the theory itself, as Maslow described it. So no, I’m not presenting you with “my interpretation.” I’m explaining the theory that you are very confidently and adamantly misinterpreting.

5

Anonymous #6 15h

yes, that’s one example among thousands re: what prepotent Doesn’t mean. so to be clear, you’re in total agreement with the notion that sex is a more persuasive motivator than the needs bundled under “safety”?

0

Anonymous #6 15h

I think it’s interesting that you frame me as “insulting” you and #3 but that you don’t feel similarly critical of the explicit condescension both of you have directed my way from before I even replied to either of you. let’s not delude ourselves into pretending either of you approached me respectfully

0

Anonymous OP 15h

what did i even say that was condescending before you even responded?

0

Anonymous #6 15h

“at some point, you have to be willing to accept that you might not understand something instead of being hostile toward everyone who tells you that you don’t” would’ve been a fitting response to nearly every one of your replies. the lack of self-awareness is stunning

-1

Anonymous #3 15h

whoooaaa, so one of the people being a condescending asshole to me in spite of their inability to effectively back up anything they were saying is a psych major? unprecedented. a psych student being predisposed to smugness and reluctant to challenge authority is totally unimaginable!

-1

Anonymous OP 15h

“condescending asshole” and it’s just be having a different interpretation LMAO

2

Anonymous #3 15h

you gotta be playing willfully naive if you don’t see what’s condescending about how you phrased your very first comment, homie. I’ve done nothing more than match your energy

-1

Anonymous OP 15h

oh you’re right, i’m so sorry mistress, i won’t voice my confusion in your stances ever again!! i promise!! ill only listen and accept everything you say🙇‍♀️

1

Anonymous #6 15h

it’s incredibly easy to refuse to engage with criticism of a theory when you willfully gloss over the parts that contradict your interpretation, and when you preemptively decide that the person you’re talking down to hasn’t actually read the thing they’re repeatedly quoting. I don’t need you to explain anything to me, thanks!

-1

Anonymous OP 15h

I’ve been nothing but respectful throughout this conversation. That changed the moment you decided to become snarky and dismissive and imply that I’m not smart. You fundamentally do not understand the nuance of this theory, and instead of considering that possibility, you’ve decided that everyone else correcting you must simply be wrong.

3

Anonymous #3 15h

it’s genuinely so funny to be this sarcastic and then feign total inability to recognize the tone you’re using in your own comments

-1

Anonymous OP 15h

You openly called people unintelligent and called them incels before they even had the chance to disrespect you, so I’m not sure why you’re now acting like everyone else is the problem. If you think someone disagree with you counts as them being hostile, then you absolutely do not belong in any major relating to psychology.

3

Anonymous OP 15h

I think a wonderful practice for you would be going to the mirror and saying these exact words while looking at yourself.

3

Anonymous #6 15h

where did I call anyone unintelligent? accusing someone of operating off of “incel logic” is also not the same as calling them an incel. frankly if you don’t intuitively recognize the overlap between “incel logic” and “if I don’t have sex then I’ll die :(“ then that would explain a lot about what’s motivating you to avoid meaningfully engaging with my criticism

-1

Anonymous #6 15h

and now you’re pretending you can’t recognize the tone of anyone’s replies other than my own. incredible. also not sure why you’re trying to lecture me about being unfit for a field I’m not majoring in—were you assigned as my counselor or something?

-1

Anonymous #6 15h

you first, sweetheart

-1

Anonymous #6 15h

“intelligible” means “capable of being understood”—you can think of it as a synonym for “legible” or “coherent”. saying “what you typed just now is illegible” is not the same as calling someone unintelligent

-1

Anonymous OP 14h

Saying someone is “using incel logic” is not some completely separate statement from calling them an incel, and you know that. You’re gonna have to grow up and admit that. Trying to preach your intellectual superiority is just you trying to comfort yourself. You’re clearly trying to position yourself above everyone else while simultaneously demonstrating that you don’t understand the theory you’re arguing about. Im gonna say this bluntly and as simple as I can. You are not smartest.

3

Anonymous #6 14h

from the same exchange btw

1

Anonymous OP 14h

Why are you so committed to arguing semantics instead of acknowledging the obvious implication of what you said? “I didn’t say you weren’t intelligent, I said you weren’t intelligible” is not the intellectual gotcha you seem to think it is. You clearly knew what you were implying. At this point, do you just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing?

1

Anonymous OP 14h

Right, that doesn’t help your case.

3

Anonymous #6 14h

it’s not the same as calling them an incel, which you hopefully also know? I’m not “preaching my intellectual superiority”, I don’t think of myself as superior. I’m reacting snarkily to having my perspective repeatedly dismissed. calm down please

-1

Anonymous OP 14h

At the end of the day, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You clearly think you’re intellectually above everyone else, and it shows in how you belittle people while refusing to acknowledge it. People aren’t dismissing your perspective. They’re telling you that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s simply a fact. It’s honestly a blessing you’re still in college, because you clearly have a lot left to learn.

1

Anonymous #6 14h

I’m literally not, I was actually being quite deliberate about not talking down to you over the fact that “intelligible” refers to a totally different quality than “intelligence”. someone saying something in a way that’s incoherent doesn’t automatically mean they’re stupid! this is something I believe out of principle, not a “gotcha”

-1

Anonymous #6 14h

I was genuinely not implying that the person I was speaking to was objectively intellectually inferior, I was indicating that the way they phrased their goofy take left me uncertain of what they were even trying to say. but anyway, look at how much time you’ve spent in this thread and ask yourself whether the “arguing for the sake of it” thing may involve a bit of projection on your part

-1

Anonymous OP 14h

The fact that you can’t understand that I’m not saying “intelligible” and “intelligent” are synonyms proves to me you’re not as smart as you think you are. Of course they’re different words. I’m talking about the implication of using “intelligible” to characterize someone’s communication in an argument. You can insist that wasn’t your intention, but you can’t dictate how your words came across after the fact. Anyone with a singular brain cell knows exactly why you said that to them.

5

Anonymous OP 14h

You’re the only person within this entire thread arguing with more than one person for hours at this point. 90% of my conversation to you was educating you on the theory that you clearly don’t understand.

1

Anonymous #6 14h

you keep trying to misrepresent your own smugly dismissive argumentation as “educating”. I’m gonna do you a favor and help you disengage

0