Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Curricula


Pic available at this site.

In 1943, one of the greatest frauds ever put upon man was published.

The article was A. H. Maslow's A Theory of Human Motivation.

Just as "modern" science has placed Man Made Global Warming on par with the most important thing any reasonable person would, or could, ever think, worry, consider, engage upon, Maslow offered that human dignity was inconsequential. That it was only the after product of the struggle against the indignities that we face on a daily basis, the worrying about finding a place to sleep, to find the food to eat, to clothe ourselves, to begin to educate ourselves, and that at the pinacle, our goal as humans was to find in ourselves a sense of being that transcended all other previous states.

This state, of transcendence, was referred to as self-actualization.

Basically, this sense of self-actualization has been present in literature since the beginning of literature. That it took until 1943 for us to realize--thanks to Maslow--that we wanted to know who we are/were is simply silly. But for anyone entering the field of Education after that point, it was necessary that we study Maslow and all of his new age theories. And the keystone of Maslow was his pyramid.

We like pyramids. Soon after Maslow's was introduced, we got the "food pyramid." Pyramids offered the consoling thought that we were building upon firm footing. After that we got such things as vitamin pyramids. Ecology pyramids. Education pyramids. Each purporting to show a relationship--moving upward--to each inevitable increase in proportion, while the area under the defined area was reduced. To become self-actualized was something that only few of us would be allowed, either through genetics or education, to achieve.

And the beauty of Maslow's pyramid wasn't that we all didn't find ourselves at the top of the chain immediately. The beauty was, we were all "becoming."

Self-actualization wasn't necessary. What was necessary was the process.

Any thinking man, woman or child was stuck in Maslow's world. What kind of day would, or could, a human have waking only to find that the near problem of physiological need would dictate the day's enterprise? Whether or not mere survival was rudimentary was lost. Simply providing for one's self, or one's family, was lost in the world of Maslow. To simply survive was blasphemy. To live to one's potential, one must slip the surly bonds of humanity, to achieve the "next" step of self-actualization. Which is in itself wrongfully asserted provinance.

The earth-shattering assertions of Maslow is nothing. Never was. I've always found more strength in Marcus Aurelius than I ever found in Maslow. Yet, Aurelius is not taught, and Maslow is. Did you ever wonder why?

Well, the question is important, since the theories of Maslow are a part of every college's education requirements. To gain a degree in Education requires one taking a Psych 201 course, in which Maslow is taught. To get an A requires a restatement of Maslow. It is pernicious and it is wrong. But educators don't buck the trend of the check. You want a check? Here is the curricula.

So, at every step of the way in the life of the young educator-to-be is this Maslow thingy. It is pyramidical. It is not sequential, nor is it logical. It is assertive. But we're beginning to find out that not all assertions are true. Yet, every successful educator has gone the the training necessary to adopt Maslow. Without exception.

A simple test; next time you have to appear at a "student/teacher" conference, ask the teacher whether or not they are employing Maslow's goals in their classroom work. They will, to a man or woman, assert that they are.

I call them idiots. You can call them whatever you like.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

OG,
I'm a younger generation, semi-recent grad, and I was in fact taught Maslow and not Aurileus. My degree was business, not education.

I kind of get where you're going, but I don't see Maslow as a departure from logic. Perhaps it was because I wasn't taught his ideas in the form of a pyramid, but as a "hierarchy of needs".

It seems logical that if you can't find food or shelter, you won't have time to think about work, if you can't find work, you won't have time to think about producing something like art (unless you're an entitled hipster living in Portland who can somehow be 35, never have had a job, play in 3 bands, and hang out all day), etc etc...

So I guess, I'm asking, what is so illogical? Looking at your pyramid, I see that I was taught a much different Maslow. It was put to me in a Entrepreneurship class, and as an attempt to understand potential markets. Aside from the "Self Actualization" BS, the rest of it seems pretty logical if you apply it to people's behavior.

lumberjack said...

The lumberkid is a freshman in education so I'll have to ask her if she's gotten into the pyramid.

I have to say though, I haven't trusted that bit of geometry since I ran into its food pyramid cousin. Imagine a food scheme with no mention of bacon or brownies.

Silly business, those pyramids.

B.B. said...

I'm back after having been without the internet for a while. Good to see you're still at it.

I have a lot more to say on this, but for now I'll just offer this comment to ponder:

The biggest (though certainly not ONLY) problem I have with Maslow's Hierarchy is that it fails to explain Christ, or Nathan Hale, or John Basilone.

ZZMike said...

"We like pyramids."

It worked for the ancient Egyptians. The big structure advertised for leagues around, and centuries afterward, "There there be treasure".

I don't think there's anything basically wrong with the main idea: you're not going to produce a nation of Mozarts or Goethes or ... until most of the people don't have to spend all their waking hours chasing mastodons for dinner.

If there's a problem with the way Maslow is presented (and there probably is, given the nature of academia today), it's got to be what we make of it.

Now then, how about the idea of "multiple intelligences"?

B.B. said...

I have two main problems with Maslow's Hierarchy: One is its presentation as a pyramid, the other is the apex need: Namely, self-actualization. And my objections to both are inter-related.

Adressing the latter first, I suppose my first response is, "Exactly what is self-actualization?" Define this transcendent state of being. Are we merely talking about self-satisfaction, "happiness", pleasure? If so I'd say that state is lacking. Or are we talking about things like truth, beauty, art, altruism, worship, things that are truly transcendent? If so, then yes, I can agree that these are the transcendent, "apex" human needs.

But in doing so, I would, and do, reject the image of a "pyramid", or the idea that the baser needs MUST be met before the higher needs can be addressed, and they met before the transcendent need. I would argue that it is the transcendent, apex need that defines us as humans, and that the other needs are means to that end -- means that on occasion must even be sacrificed to meet that end (hence my reference to Christ, to Hale, to Basilone: Martyrdom is the ultimate example of sacrificing the baser needs to meet the transcendent need).

To expand on this, permit me to respond to ZZMike when he wrote, " you're not going to produce a nation of Mozarts or Goethes or ... until most of the people don't have to spend all their waking hours chasing mastodons for dinner."

Perhaps not, but I would argue that you can't get beyond the stage of chasing Mastodons around unless you already have the potential to BECOME Mozarts or Goethes. If being atop the food chain to the point where not ALL your time is spent hunting is all it took to transcend, why don't we have orcas composing symphonies, wolves writing sonnets, lions painting masterpieces? Humanity is different in that we were already reaching for transcendence even as we were still struggling for survival -- even the most primitive, subsistence hunter-gatherer cultures have music, storytelling, religion and ethics, even art, and art at least has been with us since before the written record.

No, if you want an example from architecture that properly represents the place of the transcendent need at the apex of human needs, I wouldn't use the pyramid. Rather, I'd suggest the keystone arch -- the lower needs lift it, and support it, but at the same time it holds them up, gives them structre and meaning. Pull it out, and all we are is a pile of rubble, a jumble of animal needs -- not human.

Anonymous said...

Oregon Guy,


My name is Barbara O’Brien and I am a political blogger. Just had a question about your blog and couldn’t find an email—please get back to me as soon as you can (barbaraobrien(at)maacenter.org)

Thanks,
Barbara

Bob said...

What gets me, is articles that accept Maslow's heirarchy as an axiomatic absolute, describe a behavior, prectice, or custom that would seem to not "fit," and them waste a dozen or so pages explaining how it actually does fit.

linearthinker said...

OG, et al:

Apologies if this has already come up here. I've been occupied elsewhere for a few weeks.

Democrats attack Republican candidate's children

OSU Nuclear Engineering Department is involved up to their eyeballs, if allegations are true. I just happened on the link via comments at Belmont Club.

Would have sent this by email, but can't find your address.

B.B. said...

LT,

Have you found any other references to this? I am getting static from some of my libertarian friends because of the WND source. I try to avoid guilt by association and ad hominem dismissals, but follow-up references from other sources WOULD be helpful.

linearthinker said...

I saw one other link last night to an Oregon website, The Oregon Stater, or something like that. When I checked, it was just amplifying and repeating of the link above.

Haven't really been checking today. Will keep looking.

OG must be on a cruise. :-)

linearthinker said...

Links from brief Google search:

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/mar/statement-regarding-recent-internet-postings-art-robinson

http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2011/03/07/another-osu-fiasco/

http://ronibell.blogspot.com/2011/03/dr-art-robinsons-family-under-personal.html

http://www.oregonstateoutrage.com/home/2011/3/9/higley-tries-to-build-case-for-joshuas-dismissal.html

Draw your own conclusions. Comment threads have some interesting observations.

linearthinker said...

Mike D. says:
11 March 2011 at 4:51 pm

It is difficult for me to remain aloof to all this because I know the players personally. Just to clear up a few items:

Arthur Robinson, Ph.D., the 2010 Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in Oregon’s 4th congressional district, is a research professor of chemistry and co-founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. After graduating from the California Institute of Technology in 1963 and earning his Ph.D. from the University of California at San Diego, he served as a UCSD faculty member until co-founding the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973. In 1981, Dr. Robinson, his wife, chemist Laurelee Robinson, physicist Martin Kamen, and later joined by Nobel-winning biochemist R. Bruce Merrifield, cofounded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. In recent years, Dr. Robinson has also directed the Petition Project, which has obtained the support and signatures of more than 31,000 American scientists for a petition opposed – entirely on scientific grounds published in peer reviewed journals – to the hypothesis of “human-caused global warming.

After his wife died, Dr. Robinson raised his six children, then aged 12, 10, 9, 7, 7, and 17 months. He developed a home schooling curriculum that is now used by over 60,000 students. Is it any good? Three of Art’s children now have Ph.D.s and the other three are in Ph.D. programs (in nuclear engineering no less).

Joshua Robinson has completed all the course work. He built his apparatus and has taken all the measurements. He is basically done. He passed his FINAL written exam. He still has to pass his orals and finalize his dissertation for publication. He already has a post-doc position lined up.

Steven Reese, who is Higley’s husband, quit Joshua’s committee AFTER the written exam. He wants to steal Joshua’s work, which is virtually complete. He is not Joshua’s major professor, just one member of the committee. Reese has given NO REASON for quitting. The student handbook specifically protects grad students from this kind of backstabbing by a sabotage-minded professor. Higley refuses to abide by the handbook. She has given NO REASON for doing so.

The OSU Dept. of Nuclear Engineering has lost all their best faculty over the last four years, and has been taken over by a nepotistic cabal of “nuclear health” experts. The folks who left include Dr. Jose N. Reyes, Ph.D., who is the co-designer of the NuScale passively-cooled small nuclear reactor: safe, modular, scalable nuclear power generation that is the best answer yet to the world’s energy needs.

http://nuscalepower.com/index.php

The strongest on-campus supporter of Joshua Robinson is Dr. Jack F. Higginbotham, Ph.D., president of the OSU Faculty Senate and the only real scientist left in the NE Dept.

But all those are just my opinions. As I said, I am too close for comfort
.

Art Robinson

B.B. said...

Thanks, LT.