7 ms·

As somebody who has lived through about three decades of Powerpoints that begin and end with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https:

by gm3dmo 2y ago

As somebody who has lived through about three decades of Powerpoints that begin and end with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs where on earth are the management consultancies supposed to steal their "ideas" from to generate new fads now. I'm for sure none of them have had an original thought of their own.

fsloth 2y ago
Not sure if this is for or against, but this is a good opportunity to argument why concepts developed “in humanities” are valuable (in case if it’s not obvious :D ) Maslows hierarchy of needs, while possibly inaccurate, is a very usefull model and concept to have. As our understanding of human condition improves, we need specific terms to understand them. Imagine is there was no word for love or hunger… for aristicracy or oligarchy… etc.
- naasking 2y ago
  Accuracy and precision is useful. If Maslow's hierarchy of needs is neither, I question how useful it truly is. At best then, it would a narrative device to tell a persuasive story, but the fact that it has no factual basis means you can twist it to tell whatever story you want. This is a problem endemic to social sciences due to the replication crisis. Lots of social scientists in this article are saying that their field is important to the economy, but given they mainly produce results that don't replicate (~30% replicate last I checked), maybe they should focus on improving that so their ROI is actually compelling.
  - wpietri 2y ago
    Funny that you should say that. It's not just the social sciences that are having a replication crisis. [1] So this appears to be some sort of broad social problem that we don't totally understand. Seems like we need people who study societies to help figure it out. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a
    - naasking 2y ago
      Social sciences are by far the worst offenders, with sociology right at the bottom at ~30% replication rate. > Seems like we need people who study societies to help figure it out. No, we need people who understand robust quantitative analysis and empirical methodologies. Sociologists are clearly not them. Open science and preregistration initiatives help a lot, but I should note that social sciences were also the most vociferous objectors to such changes.
      - wpietri 2y ago
        Did you look at the article I linked? Even many chemists and physicists think significant portions of their fields have results that can't be reduced. Biology and medicine even more so. Even if the problem were related to robust quantitative analysis, the question of why so many people are failing to apply particular methods isn't a question for physics or chemistry.
        wpietri 2y ago
        Oops! s/reduced/reproduced/
        naasking 2y ago
        > Even many chemists and physicists think significant portions of their fields have results that can't be reduced. Biology and medicine even more so. Yes, I'm aware of the reproducibility numbers, that's why I said social science was the absolute worst, by far. Despite only 50% of medical papers replicating, they've still provided significant improvements over the past few decades. Ditto with chemistry. The same cannot be said for sociology and psychology. CBT is still the tool with the best track record and that was created in the 1960s. The robust, replicated results from sociology since the 1980s have modest effect sizes and are basically things we already knew, eg. that social isolation is not good, and that social norms influence people's behaviour. > Even if the problem were related to robust quantitative analysis, the question of why so many people are failing to apply particular methods isn't a question of physics or chemistry. Neither is it a question of sociology or psychology. Science is a systematic, self-correcting process that should be agnostic to any factors, including human fallibility, conflicts of interest, AI generated nonsense, etc.
  - timschmidt 2y ago
    > Accuracy and precision is useful. If Maslow's hierarchy of needs is neither, I question how useful it truly is. https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
  - gm3dmo 2y ago
    CEO's have a "replication crisis" and they join and leave companies on huge salary and equity packages having totally failed to turn around or deliver the growth they were hired for. The fact that they did it in one place is no guarantee they can "reproduce" their first success and chance has more of a role than anybody will admit.
morkalork 2y ago
They're gonna steal from optimization. Are we going with an explore vs exploit strategy? We need to get this project into the annealing stage and slow down on big changes. What's the shortest path to an MVP. We need to branch and bound on different features in the prototype.
blitzar 2y ago
Fortune cookies, classic hallmark greeting cards or twitter threads
dboreham 2y ago
Buddhism?
rgblambda 2y ago
Easy. They're going to continue to copy/paste Maslow's hierarchy of needs into a new PowerPoint like they've always done. They've never needed new ideas before. Why start now?

by gm3dmo 2y ago

fsloth 2y ago

Not sure if this is for or against, but this is a good opportunity to argument why concepts developed “in humanities” are valuable (in case if it’s not obvious :D ) Maslows hierarchy of needs, while possibly inaccurate, is a very usefull model and concept to have. As our understanding of human condition improves, we need specific terms to understand them. Imagine is there was no word for love or hunger… for aristicracy or oligarchy… etc.

naasking 2y ago
Accuracy and precision is useful. If Maslow's hierarchy of needs is neither, I question how useful it truly is. At best then, it would a narrative device to tell a persuasive story, but the fact that it has no factual basis means you can twist it to tell whatever story you want. This is a problem endemic to social sciences due to the replication crisis. Lots of social scientists in this article are saying that their field is important to the economy, but given they mainly produce results that don't replicate (~30% replicate last I checked), maybe they should focus on improving that so their ROI is actually compelling.
- wpietri 2y ago
  Funny that you should say that. It's not just the social sciences that are having a replication crisis. [1] So this appears to be some sort of broad social problem that we don't totally understand. Seems like we need people who study societies to help figure it out. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a
  - naasking 2y ago
    Social sciences are by far the worst offenders, with sociology right at the bottom at ~30% replication rate. > Seems like we need people who study societies to help figure it out. No, we need people who understand robust quantitative analysis and empirical methodologies. Sociologists are clearly not them. Open science and preregistration initiatives help a lot, but I should note that social sciences were also the most vociferous objectors to such changes.
    - wpietri 2y ago
      Did you look at the article I linked? Even many chemists and physicists think significant portions of their fields have results that can't be reduced. Biology and medicine even more so. Even if the problem were related to robust quantitative analysis, the question of why so many people are failing to apply particular methods isn't a question for physics or chemistry.
      - wpietri 2y ago
        Oops! s/reduced/reproduced/
      - naasking 2y ago
        > Even many chemists and physicists think significant portions of their fields have results that can't be reduced. Biology and medicine even more so. Yes, I'm aware of the reproducibility numbers, that's why I said social science was the absolute worst, by far. Despite only 50% of medical papers replicating, they've still provided significant improvements over the past few decades. Ditto with chemistry. The same cannot be said for sociology and psychology. CBT is still the tool with the best track record and that was created in the 1960s. The robust, replicated results from sociology since the 1980s have modest effect sizes and are basically things we already knew, eg. that social isolation is not good, and that social norms influence people's behaviour. > Even if the problem were related to robust quantitative analysis, the question of why so many people are failing to apply particular methods isn't a question of physics or chemistry. Neither is it a question of sociology or psychology. Science is a systematic, self-correcting process that should be agnostic to any factors, including human fallibility, conflicts of interest, AI generated nonsense, etc.
- timschmidt 2y ago
  > Accuracy and precision is useful. If Maslow's hierarchy of needs is neither, I question how useful it truly is. https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
- gm3dmo 2y ago
  CEO's have a "replication crisis" and they join and leave companies on huge salary and equity packages having totally failed to turn around or deliver the growth they were hired for. The fact that they did it in one place is no guarantee they can "reproduce" their first success and chance has more of a role than anybody will admit.

morkalork 2y ago

They're gonna steal from optimization. Are we going with an explore vs exploit strategy? We need to get this project into the annealing stage and slow down on big changes. What's the shortest path to an MVP. We need to branch and bound on different features in the prototype.

blitzar 2y ago

Fortune cookies, classic hallmark greeting cards or twitter threads

dboreham 2y ago

Buddhism?

rgblambda 2y ago

Easy. They're going to continue to copy/paste Maslow's hierarchy of needs into a new PowerPoint like they've always done. They've never needed new ideas before. Why start now?