The Number 1 Psychological Need of Human Beings

 

Autonomy is the whole thing; it’s what unhappy people are missing. They have given the power to run their lives to other people.

Judith Guest, novelist

 

Do you know anyone who was pressured to take on a career or a life partner that their heart did not pine for? We should have a new hashtag movement #You Too for all those who were leaned on, or even compelled, by their friends, peers, parents, society, religion, or nation-state, to conform—to walk away from their “true self,” in choosing their careers, partners, and other momentous life choices.

Would it surprise us to find out that most of them resent what the others did? But deep down, even more anguish is caused if we know that we stabbed ourselves in our soul. Sometimes it lasts for life. Others find the “self” heals, but only with time and effort to revive it.

What are the mental and physical consequences of staying true (or not) to our true self, if there is one?

Mental blackmail feels like a violation of the “true” self. But the question whether there is a “true self” is itself contentious—from religion to philosophy to psychology, there have been many a pronouncement on it. It goes to the heart of what a human being is—are we so deeply rooted in our psyche, that to disobey “it” (whether for money, or for conformance) is tantamount to selling our soul? What are the mental and physical consequences of staying true (or not) to our true self, if there is one?

Ancient Greek philosophy inaugurated the concept of eudemonia (the flourishing of the “true self” or the daimon). “Eudemonia” (also spelt “eudaimonia”) is now undergoing a strong revival in psychological research. In 2013, Alan Waterman (as editor) published “The Best Within Us: Positive Psychology Perspectives on Eudaimonia”—a series of essays by various psychologists and philosophers on the study of flourishing and the fulfillment of potentials, identity development, happiness, and well-being.

But well prior to this revival in academe, came the famous “hierarchy of needs.”

 

Maslow’s Hierarchy of “Needs”

In 1943, psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)^[1] proposed a theory of the human organism as a five-stage model of human drives: Beginning with physiological needs (food, air, water), followed by safety needs, love needs (including intimate friendships), esteem and prestige needs, and, finally, a “need” for self-actualization—achieving one’s potential, including a need for creativity.

Maslow’s original contention was that each set of needs should be largely gratified before other needs surfaced.

Researcher Saul McLeod states that Maslow later refined his model,^[2] expanding the repertoire of needs as well as relaxing the constraint of lower-need satisfaction before higher needs surface. In the refined model, juxtaposed between esteem and self-actualization were cognitive needs—knowledge and understanding, curiosity, exploration, need for meaning and predictability, and aesthetic needs—appreciation and search for beauty, balance, and form.

Maslow’s thesis appeals to our intuition, but the higher “needs,” are not obvious as “needs” rather than nice-to-haves.

 

Do “Psychological Needs” Exist?

Actualization is fundamental to life itself. So what is a human being’s actualization?

Organisms come into being with needs specific to their nature, and are equipped with potential capacities, that, when fully developed, can meet those needs. If such capacities are not developed to a minimal degree, an organism could fail to maintain its existence until it has left a genetic legacy.

Lion cubs engage in rough play with siblings. They seem to bite each other. But the bites leave no marks—their capacity to hunt is developed as this “rough play” is such a thrill that the cub cannot resist frequent practice. Meanwhile, fawns enjoy being able to run, and run really fast, for, as deer, their survival does depend on having just such a capacity. An organism’s development of capacities to fulfill its needs is what we can call an organismic actualization process. Biologically, actualization is fundamental to life itself.

So what is a human being’s actualization? To figure that out, we must postulate its nature.

I would propose that modern humans have:

1. A recognition of a continuous identity (for coherence);
2. An autobiographical memory of significant personal events set in linear time;

We know that a coherent identity and authentic memory are crucial elements of our mental makeup, of “the self.” The flipside is that a coherent memory of the harm done to us may cause ongoing resentment, even trauma, especially if we did not oppose it with all in our power.

And we also have:

1. A personality, which includes traits, attributes, dispositions—some genetic, some self-created, and standing orders (or the ethic) as a guide to choices;
2. A reflective self-consciousness, which is, in effect, an awareness of the fact that we are aware of ourselves and our actions, and thus can contemplate their aftereffects;

And, while humans are not born with a blank slate (tabula rasa) in that they have genetic instincts, needs, and potentialities, they have:

1. An ability to override or withstand instincts with deliberations (short-term free will); and
2. Neuroplasticity—the ability of our mind to rewire our brain, physically and functionally, throughout our life. This rewiring includes the ability not only to increase skills, but also to affect the subconscious by habit and persistence and change the ethical standing orders the brain feeds the mind, i.e., long-term free will.

Indeed, Jean Askenasy (Faculty of Medicine) and Joseph Lehmann (School of Philosophy)[3] from Tel-Aviv University infer that the nervous system is a two-way street:

It is a common experience and has been observed scientifically that the nervous system changes continuously following internal and external events as well as thoughts, imaginations and dreams. Such changes are followed by changes in memory and content of consciousness.

Askenasy and Lehmann cite the case of “I.K.” I.K. suffered a stroke that destroyed a quarter of his brain (half of his left brain). He could no longer speak or write. Comprehension was also affected, but I.K. could understand his doctors—the neurologists held no hope for him. But I.K. made a determination[4]:

To conduct a new form of life. I want to talk words of wisdom, but I know that my mouth will betray me when I speak … So what is left for me? I have the will to live, not as I want, but as I can.

And so he did. Four years later, I.K. could play the piano with his left hand, write books and poems, and paint well enough to exhibit his paintings to the public.

Askenasy and Lehmann attribute this and other such outcomes to the top-down effect of “consciousness on cognition.”

Qua Psychological Organisms, we will have “psychological” needs.

Thus, modern human beings are organisms capable of directing themselves; even manufacturing,[5] let alone governing, their emotions, and adapting, physiologically, the very source of directedness and emotion (the brain) to new circumstances. Thus, we could call ourselves “psychological organisms”—we are uniquely so in nature. Qua Psychological Organisms, we will have “psychological” needs.

Apart from an infant’s need for “unqualified” love and an adult’s value-based need for love, respect, and friendship, one could postulate other “needs”—say, a psychological yearning to find meaning in one’s life and leave a non-genetic legacy, akin to a biological yearning to leave a genetic one.

What happens to us if our psychological needs are unmet for long periods?

Biological needs are acute. As the 3-3-3 guideline suggests (albeit empirical variation around this is common)^[6], a human organism is at risk of death or brain/other organ damage from a sustained three minutes without oxygen, three days without water, and three weeks without nourishment.

Psychological needs are not that pressing, not for day-to-day survival. But what happens to us if our psychological needs are unmet for long periods?

 

A More Recent Theory of Human Nature

In the Eighties, psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan formulated a self-determination theory (SDT) of human drives, suggesting that only three psychological needs are paramount: the acquisition of competences, self-regulation (autonomy), and relatedness to others.

In their paper “Nature and Autonomy,” together with Julius Kuhl, Deci and Ryan propose that “human autonomy [is] an evolved behavioral, developmental, and experiential phenomenon that operates at both neurobiological and psychological levels and requires very specific supports within higher order social organizations.” A compelling inference—“[autonomy] requires specific supports within higher order social organizations”—societies must evolve to support autonomy in individuals—it is their intrinsically organismic want, an evolved phenomenon.

On motivation, Deci and Ryan teamed up with philosopher Randall Curren to attest[7]:

From birth, infants explore, manipulate, and play in interaction with their physical and interpersonal surrounds. Their curiosity is unbounded for those things within their physical and cognitive reach. This natural tendency to engage in play, exploration, and discovery for its own sake is called intrinsic motivation, and it has long been a focus of study within SDT. This potentiality for assimilating knowledge and skills out of interest is surely a deep part of human nature whose realization is good and whose dampening or frustration would lead to unhappiness.

 

Biology and psychology are not at loggerheads in the Psychological Organism.

Intrinsic motivation is natural—biology and psychology are not at loggerheads in the Psychological Organism.

Hence, Deci and Ryan emphasize intrinsic (self-generated) motivation as against extrinsic, reward based impetus, or introjected desires (internalized by adopting societal standards).

Psychologist Carol Ryff in fact argues (in “Eudaimonic well-being and health: Mapping consequences of self-realization”), that “Increasingly, there is recognition that well-being plays a role in offering protection against disease, disability, and early mortality, via optimal regulation of multiple neurological and physiological systems. In support of this perspective, there is emerging evidence that eudaimonic well-being promotes good health.”

Indeed, better psychological health is crucial to biological health and longevity.

 

The Verdict Is In

Deci and Ryan report that by 2008, across hundreds of studies, there was a clear finding[8]: “People whose basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are more satisfied experience greater wellness and thriving. This pattern turns out to be reliable across ages, genders, and cultures.” And further: “This pattern of effects is evident not only over aggregate measurements, in which general need satisfaction predicts mental health and happiness, but even on a daily or situational basis.”

The researchers also found a large “weekend effect[9]” in which from Friday night through Sunday afternoon there was more happiness, fewer physical symptoms, and more vitality:

This pattern, familiar to most workers, was largely due to within-person changes in psychological need satisfaction—when people were anticipating working or on the job, many felt low autonomy and low relatedness, thus diminishing their mental health. Of course, individuals who were experiencing more autonomy and relatedness at work thrived there as well, demonstrating how flourishing is dependent on need satisfaction within the settings of one’s life. Similarly, a plethora of experiments shows how autonomy supports versus thwarts impact moment-to-moment wellness, whether the person is interacting with others or playing a solitary game.

 

Why Autonomy is Number 1

But what competencies shall we acquire? What work could we do to banish Monday-itis? Who should we develop relationships with? We can’t alter our biological parents, but we can choose our spouses, friends, where we work or learn (and hence work colleagues and teachers, to a degree), acquaintances, and our physicians and electricians.

If we are self-regulated, we choose our highest cardinal values, and purposes in life, and they set the course of how best we are to make a living and spend our “weekends,” which in turn, tells us what competencies we must acquire and to what level.

Deci and Ryan interpret the empirical results as demonstrating human beings having three fundamental needs; others (such as Martin Seligman here) list five or more, including finding meaning in life, and “accomplishment.” Advancing “the acquisition of competencies” and “accomplishment” as a key psychological need serves a pivotal purpose: the clarification of why an endless satisfaction of appetites (food, wine, sex, mood-altering drugs, adrenaline thrills etc.) does not provide lasting serenity.

But I see autonomy as the paramount driver. After all, if one became excellent at medicine through introjection, became a “successful” general physician with lasting relationships, but had his heart set on becoming a concert pianist, then the mastery of medicine—whilst satisfying in and of itself (because practicing a mastered art is a source of pleasurable feeling)—will not further the ultimate self-set purpose in a time-limited lifespan.

There’s no divine meaning except as given to one’s own life by oneself using self-established standards. Only an accomplishment by autonomic yardsticks furnishes a feeling of pride. A victory in alien eyes at the cost of disrespecting the true self will furnish guilt.

A great wisdom contained in just two words came from Socrates over two thousand years ago: “Know thyself.”

“Know thyself,” of course, hints at self-discovery. It’s a common belief in western society that there is somewhere within us a “real me” (the daimon) that, when discovered, sets the guiding North Star for the rest of our lives via values, purposes, and goals.

In “Eudaimonic Identity Theory,[10]” Alan Waterman and Seth Schwartz clarify the nature of the daimon:

The daimon refers to those potentialities of each person that, when realized, represent the greatest fulfillment in living of which the person is capable. These include both the potentialities that are shared by all humans by virtue of our common species, that is, our generic human nature, as well as those unique potentials that distinguish each individual from all others. The daimon is an ideal in the sense of being an excellence, a perfection toward which one strives, the best within us, and hence it can provide direction and meaning to one’s life.

The “self”—the conception within our brain of who we are—our history, our skill set, our ethics, our purposes—is reaffirmed frequently by our autonomous practice, and, in adverse circumstances, can, to some extent, be re-created. An aspiring ballerina may have her dream cut short by injury, and must re-create a new meaning. It’s not necessarily an invariant “true self” awaiting discovery, but a range of potentialities awaiting detection—including such as being a good, caring grandparent in retirement.

Whether to discover, develop, or re-create “a true self,” the first thing we need is self-directedness.

Nevertheless, whether to discover, develop, or re-create “a true self,” the first thing we need is self-directedness. First, we must formulate an ethic that we validate for ourselves as upstanding and is capable of universalization—we must ask if a conflict arises if the entire human species adopted this ethic.

In turn, that ethic becomes the barometer to judge goals, mission, and meaning; a gold-standard criterion of our life’s central purpose and a non-genetic legacy ambition. The directedness of focus to convert potentialities to competencies, to mastery even, and to acquire real friendship has to be consequential to the legacy committed to, in order to avoid conflict among values.

Hence self-regulation is the most primary need of the Psychological Organism. We can seek counsel in discovering our “true self,” and take advice in the setting the directions in our life satnav system, as long as we decide who we take it from, and what we accept as ours, as part of our evolving daimon. Our paramount need is for our soul to be autonomous, to remain Invictus.

 

I am the master of my fate,

I am the captain of my soul.

Invictus by William Ernest Henley

 
The author thanks Walter Donway and Brishon Martin for comments made on an earlier draft and John Yokela for his coining of the term “Psychological Organism.”
 
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
[1] A. H. Maslow, “A Theory of Human Motivation,” in Psychological Review 50, (1943), pp. 370-396.

[2] Saul McLeod, “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,” Simply Psychology, updated March 20,2020, https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

[3] Jean Askenasy and Joseph Lehmann, “Consciousness, Brain and Neuroplasticity” Frontiers in Psychology,  10 July 2013 doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00412, p.10

[4] Ibid, p.1

[5] Lisa Feldman Barrett, How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain, Mariner Books; Reprint edition (March 2018).

[6] Sean Kane, “Here’s the longest people have survived without air, food, water, sunshine, or sleep,” Business Insider, accessed online at https://www.businessinsider.com/longest-survival-records-water-food-sleep-breathing-2016-5?IR=T

[7] Richard Ryan, Edward Deci, Randall Curren, “What Humans Need: Flourishing in Aristotelian Philosophy and Self-Determination Theory,” DOI: 10.1037/14092-004, The Best Within Us: Positive Psychology Perspectives on Eudaimonia, Alan S. Waterman (Editor),p. 61

[8] Ibid, p.62

[9] Ibid, p.63

[10] Alan Waterman and Seth Schwartz, Eudaimonic Identity Theory, p.101 DOI: 10.1037/14092-006