Talk:Self-actualization/Archive 1

Archive 1

This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Self-actualization on 17 Jan 2005. The consensus was to keep or merge. (3 votes to keep, 3 to merge.) dbenbenn | talk 05:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I chose to merge the page. dbenbenn | talk 05:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archive or delete?

Including this for reference - it probably can be deleted as it seems to have been resolved.

More on Goldstein

The comments below were copied from my talk page Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 19:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

79.228.25.234's change was not vandalism. However, while it was in good faith, it was not a good idea. That's why I repeatedly removed two parenthetical remarks and a third that might as well be in parentheses, all of which showed a fascination with Goldstein that was undue. The article is about self-actualization, not Goldstein. We must acknowledge his important role, but we cannot distort the topic of the article. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about self-actualization as a concept, and this concept was introduced into the scientific community (and developed to a large extend in his book "The Organism") by Kurt Goldstein. Thus Goldstein belongs into the article, and there is no "undue fascination" behind that. And as I said: Especially the explanatory comment concerning Anne Harrington's book is useful for the reader to understand why the book is listed. There are no recognizable "distortions" of the article by the deleted sentences. So I suggest again that either IP 24.45.42.125 reverts his repeated deletions (that he did again) or Vertium intervenes in that direction. Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.21.131 (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Goldstein does belong on the article and he's right there, given full credit for originally introducing the term. Nobody is trying to hide this fact. However, the concept was further developed by others, and we don't need to continually reference Goldstein when discussing work that was not done by him. The constant mentions would constitute an undue fascination. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, my thanks to both of you for engaging in a civil discussion instead of edit warring. If we can get to some sense of consensus here, then we can update the article. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 21:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. Lets get down to the things we are really talking about. It's not Goldstein in general. It's three small remarks. I suggest we delete the remark in connection with the college book, which I also find unnecessary at that place. But I would insist on the additional explanatory remarks under "Further reading" because they are useful for the reader, especially with Harrington's book: "Harrington, Anne: Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler, Princeton University Press, 1999. (Anne Harrington dedicates a comprehensive chapter to Kurt Goldstein and his work.) Heylighen, Francis. (1992). A cognitive-systemic reconstruction of Maslow’s theory of self-actualization. Behavioral Science, 37(1), 39–58. doi:10.1002/bs.3830370105 (completely neglecting Kurt Goldstein' work and his influence)" - Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.42.97 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made another change. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. And that finishes this argument for me. We can leave it as it is now. Friedhelm; Germany --79.228.40.167 (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we were able to come to a compromise. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Citations

Citations and other problems

I would like to point out that the citation formatting in this article is inconsistent. For example, "Towards a Psychology of Being" is listed both in the "References" section and the "Notes" section, and is cited both with tags and MLA-style in-text documentation in different spots throughout the article. I would also like to note that it seems somebody had a field day adding uncited, unrelated, and often unnecessary information and rewording of the information already present (in the guise of "clarifying" things), especially in Self-actualization#In psychology, which I cleaned up a little bit, as well as the final paragraph of Self-actualization#Criticism. 67.5.25.53 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked through the history and it appears that most of the frivolous edits I was talking about came from Julianjulioalive. Unfortunately, they were made long enough ago to necessitate manual reversion of his edits. 67.5.25.53 (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Maslow citations cleanup needed

The article contains citations to Maslow with various problems:

• title but no date (e.g., "Abraham H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality. 2nd ed....")
• date but no title (e.g., "Maslow 1987", "Maslow, 2011")
• incorrect date (e.g., "Maslow, 2000 A Theory of Human Motivation", actual date was 1943)
• dates of publication attributed to Maslow but after his death (e.g., 1987, 2000, 2011)

Therefore, I am adding a Refimprove template to the article. When cleaning up Maslow references, it may be helpful to check the "Comprehensive bibliography of Maslow's works" which can be found in the Abraham Maslow article. -- HLachman (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hope to improve this article

Self-Actualization is a very important and basic theory that every business student reads and learns, seeing this article i can say, its in a very bad shape, the definitions and references provided are worthless and seems promotional, i will try my best to bring this article at its utmost quality levels, though right now i don't have administrators rights, therefore i might need help from administrators on protecting this article and possible vandalism. This is so confusing, "if i edit the useless article, the previous contribution will be deleted!, i don't know i should do that or not?, I have made a separate article self actualization theory, further administrators can decide what can be done.

Added by Lauchlan Mackinnon, November 2019:

Yep, this article could be considerably improved.

I'd like to see:

1. More coverage of precedents, like Neitzsche's "be who you are", Jung's individuation and the quotes "Become who you are. Become all that you are. There is still more of you — more to be discovered, forgiven, and loved." — Carl Jung; “The privilege of a lifetime is to become who you truly are.” — Carl Jung
2. More development of Maslow's idea of self-actualisation from 1943 or earlier onwards and how it's different to Goldstein, Rogers etc

Also later efforts like Chip Conley's Peak and Barry Scott Kaufman's work on self-actualisation should be mentioned, and Maslow's later work os self-actualisation ("S-A") in Maslow on Management.

I don't understand why a section on Peak experiences was removed. Peak experiences are central to self-actualisation.

Also it should cover the evolution of Maslow's thinking, and the later ideas of Theory Z and "transcenders" and how that is different to Maslow's initial concept of self-actualization :)

Also this page could be a bit better coordinated with the Abraham Maslow page.

Lauchlanmack (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

ALL the comments / discussion below this point is at least 5 years old and often older, Cleanup / action needed.

But also:

1. The criticism section is vague and weak Lauchlanmack (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
2. There is a lot of redundancy in the article - the same points are repeated in multiple sections. It could be tidied up. Lauchlanmack (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Lauchlanmack (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Definition and concept

Update November 2019:

I think this has been addressed since these comments were made, and these comments about the definition can be deleted.

The definition section could be tidied up a little though. Lauchlanmack (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Definition unclear

The article currently does not have a clear definition of self-actualization. I may try to re-write it. I think that this article should begin with as straightforward as possible of a definition of self actualization, and then discuss the history of the term afterwards. Cazort (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Layman's view

As a layman, I find the article quite hard to follow. At the moment, it reads like an academic paper, and avoids any concrete examples.

I thought I knew what "self-actualization" meant before I came to this page. Now I'm not so sure... Heavy Joke (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Peak experiences

"People who are self actualized have had peak experiences. Peak experiences are situations that are so intense that the person loses all sense of self and they find themselves in the flow of the event. These are often religious or mystical experiences."

I'm concerned about this paragraph in the article. Does it mean to say that ALL people who are self actualized have had such experiences? According to whom? Maslow? I hope this brief paragraph could be expanded with greater detail and referencing. Thank you! 195.54.243.250 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)David Walker, London

Given how weak the referencing is, i propose deleting the peak experiences paragraph until it is strengthened. As is, it adds nothing to understanding of the topic. 118.138.166.48 (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be cited and expanded. I've deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.22.85 (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Update November 2019:

Peak experiences are a key concept for self-actualization. We need to add back in in a section on this, but a better one than the above paragraph. Google for self-actualization and peak experiences and you'll find much better content on this. :) There is also some brief discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow Lauchlanmack (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Antecedents and alternatives

Update November 2019

I suggest add a new section in the main article for "Historical antecedents" or similar, and refer to these sources there if there are citations to back it up. I'd also add references to Neitzsche, Jung, and possibly Jioseph Campbell as well. I'd also point to modern developments like Chip Conley's work in Peak, and Kaufmann's work with research on self-actualization. Lauchlanmack (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Aristotle

I think self-actualization has something to do with the philosophy of Aristotle, notably in Actus et potentia, but I would to double-check and source that however. ADM (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC) You are correct, it is quoted as such from the current textbook at university level for the NSTP course in the Republic of the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.211.109.170 (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Descartes

I am curious as to how self actualization is credited to someone, when the term is used by Descartes (1596-1650) in his Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditation IV to be exact). If there are plans to expand the definition, and use of the term, to other disciplines other than Psychology then please disregard. If it is not, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.159.68.251 (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hesse

It occurs to me that mentioning Swiss Nobel Laureate Hermann Hesse in this article might be very helpful. He really popularized the idea of self-discovery and self-actualization in the realm of Literature, drawing influence from most of the people cited in the article. His style, themes, and overall message of the importance of self-actualization was apparently profound enough to earn him a Nobel, so perhaps he's worthy of mention in this article? If I get some free time, I may plan ways to include him in this article, barring objection of course.76.199.153.32 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Structure and scope

Improve the lead paragraph?

Update November 2019:

I don't think a mention of flow is needed in the lead, but I think a section on flow in the article would be helpful. I suggest add this after or in a section about peak experiences. Lauchlanmack (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Mention flow in the lead?

I think that 'flow' is somehow related to self-actualization. I understand that the lead is the summary of the article. While 'flow' is mentioned in three lines in the lead, it is not mentioned at all in the rest of the article. I wonder how we can improve this disproportion. Thank you. New worl (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Chapter removed from article for further editing

I removed this chapter from the article, as it doesn't fit into the Goldstein-section, and it cannot easily be integrated into the Maslow-chapter:

"“What a man can be, he must be.”[8] This forms the basis of the perceived need for self-actualization. This level of need pertains to what a person's full potential is and realizing that potential. Maslow describes this desire as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.[9]

This is a broad definition of the need for self-actualization, but when applied to individuals the need is specific. For example one individual may have the strong desire to become an ideal parent, in another it may be expressed athletically, and in another it may be expressed in painting, pictures, or inventions.[10]

As mentioned before, in order to reach a clear understanding of this level of need one must first not only achieve the previous needs, physiological, safety, love, and esteem, but master these needs." Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.60.54 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Update November 2019:

I would say that the first and second paragraphs do belong in the Maslow section. The third is redundant as the point is already made multiple times in the article. Lauchlanmack (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Improve section on Goldstein's concept of self-actualisation

Update November 2019:

I added these insights back in to the article in the Goldstein section. If y'all are happy with that lets delete this talk sub-section. I think the references to Adlerian and Gestalt psychology in the Goldstein section need some cleanup. Lauchlanmack (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Misunderstanding Goldstein?

I have a problem with the way Goldstein's concept of "self-actualization" is represented in the article as it may lead to misunderstandings.

1. First: the German term used by Goldstein, translated as "self-actualization", is "Selbstverwirklichung" - I find "self-realization" more adequate (And I know that "self-actualization" is the word used in the translation of "The Organism").
2. Second: Goldstein sets it in contrast to "self-preservation" (Selbsterhaltung). "Self-actualization" for Goldstein means something that comes close to realization of one's "essence", one's identity, one's felt sense of oneself; which may in consequence mean that a person is willing to risk his or her life in order to maintain "self-actualization" (Selbsverwirklichung), the realization of his or her "essence" of the person he or she feels that she/he IS. Unfortunately I only have the German edition of "The Organism" and I cannot contribute quotations.

Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.21.38 (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

First Nations Wisdom

Maslow's hierarchy of needs was his adaptation of the Blackfoot Nation's wisdom.

Blackfoot Needs Hierarchy was shaped like a tepee.

Culture perpetuity (top) Community actualization (mid) Self actualization (base) 65.93.145.28 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)