The Ten Psychological Needs of Human Beings

I am the master of my fate,

I am the captain of my soul.

Invictus by William Ernest Henley

Are we, though? Masters of our fate and captains of our soul?

Are we, though? Masters of our fate and captains of our soul? I will contend that we can captain our souls. And only when we do so, we can influence our external fate, as well as secure a large degree of control over our mental state by directing our lives to meet our “psychological needs.”

The first part of this essay under “The Foundations” was published and subsumed by another piece on “The Art of Living,” a Savvy Street category, see “The Number 1 Psychological Need of Human Beings.” Those familiar with it may skip directly to the second part “The Ten Psychological Needs.”
 
The Foundations part of this essay covers the foundations one needs to understand the rest of it. The ten needs are listed and detailed under the heading: The Ten Psychological Needs.

The Foundations

Do “Psychological Needs” Exist?

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 would fail to maintain its existence until it has left a genetic legacy. This is an evolutionary mechanism to ensure survival of the species.

E.g., lion cubs engage in rough play with siblings. They bite each other, leaving no marks—their capacity to hunt is developed because this “rough play” is such a thrill that the cub cannot resist frequent practice. Fawns enjoy being able to run, and run really fast, because, 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.

Biologically, actualization is fundamental to life itself.

So what is our actualization qua human beings? To figure that out, we must hypothesize our nature.

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 have a “mind,” which is the sum total of the processes of the brain by which it secures and maintains an identity, memory, desires, fears, hopes, plans, convictions and makes judgments.
We know that a coherent identity and authentic memory are crucial elements of our mental makeup, of “the self.” The downside 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)[1] 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[2]:

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.” I would contend that neuroplasticity offers an empirical proof of free will, but the process by which this happens, i.e. how thought influences matter, is an unsolved riddle in the philosophy of mind.

Thus, human beings of the modern era are capable of directing themselves; even manufacturing,[3] let alone governing, their emotions, and adapting, physiologically, the very source of directedness and emotion (the brain) to new circumstances. We could call ourselves “psychological organisms.” (see 10 below). We are uniquely so in nature. As psychological organisms, we will have “psychological” needs.

What happens to us if our psychological needs are unmet for long periods? Disquiet. Unhappiness. Resentment.

But we are a single organism integrated in a mind and a body that has biological needs. As the 3-3-3 guideline suggests (albeit empirical variation around this is common)^[4], biological needs are acute—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 any nourishment.

Psychological needs are not that pressing, not for sheer survival. But what happens to us if our psychological needs are unmet for long periods? Disquiet. Unhappiness. Resentment.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of “Needs”

In 1943, psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)^[5] 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,^[6] 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.

The Ten Psychological Needs

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

Let me now posit that we have a larger set of psychological needs. The ten needs are universal but because we can effectively drive ourselves (the mind can rewire the brain), and because cultures are different, the degree of their acuteness is felt differently; in some, for example, the need for a genetic legacy may not be felt at all.

I do contend that the intermingled needs are not hierarchical, but that they are nested.

I do contend that the intermingled needs are not hierarchical, but that they are nested, not totally independent of each other—an unmet need affects others: it’s harder to satisfy one at the expense of others; it’s easier to seek an integrated satisfaction of all of them.

I know this is counterintuitive for some; it’s been said often that a person sought one thing (success in business, motherhood, money etc.) at the expense of something else (a marital relationship, career, education etc.); this can be true, but it’s not always true.

1. Reality orientation

The most crucial aspect of biological survival is adaptation to actual reality, not to an illusion inside the head of an organism. Animals that get deceived by predators become prey. Certain turtles and snakes, for example, pretend to be the game of their favorite prey, and thereby lure their victims to get close enough to strike[7]. Human beings, too, cannot survive by consistently misapprehending physical reality; in the jungle even the odd mistake can prove deadly.

An error, if not fatal, may still prove costly. In a civilized society, misapprehending the intention of others or trusting them too easily can lead to oneself getting manipulated. On the other hand, being unrealistically paranoid deprives an individual of healthy, synergistic relationships.

2. Autonomy

Julian Jaynes hypothesized that anatomically modern Homo sapiens have not always been geared for autonomy.[8] But the rise of a self-reflective consciousness impels the organism toward a desire for autonomous action, for it becomes keenly aware of both external compulsion and internal misgivings which violate its autonomy.

There’s no easy way out of this. One needs to be more self-reflective to take charge of one’s life, to feel the excitement of self-directed achievement, to feel wonder at human progress, or nature’s beauty and us in it, to be one party to a benevolent friendship, a romance, or a healthy teacher-student relationship. The price of this progression to a greater self-awareness is a deep comprehension of situations wherein one’s autonomy is threatened, breached, or manipulated. And its outcome on how one feels is anger and frustration, which is inevitable.

3. Acquisition of competencies and mastery

Like all other organisms, we are geared toward the acquisition of competencies. But there is a catch. In the caveman era, we all needed the same survival skills. However, in a modern industrial society, we can trade a single skill set for the satisfaction of all biological needs (and even some psychological needs). So being able to extract a price for skill and application is key to a non-dependent survival. But, since we have evolved to acquire skills, an acquisition of any skill set can become a pleasure in itself.

A typical illustration is of people deriving pleasure from peripheral skill sets that they do not use to earn income from, such as playing the guitar or drums well, cooking well, gardening, golf, dance, crafts…the list is endless. Even getting better at chess, which has no immediately proximate survival value, except as a validation of thinking skills, can imbue us with feelings of a serene happiness.

Mastering a skill bathes our mind even deeper in self-esteem, which in itself is a key psychological need—the needs, as we said before, are nested.

But skills atrophy from disuse. We also miss those pleasures when opportunities to exercise our acquired competencies or masteries are denied by circumstances.

So we need to balance that need with the time available to us. If you become excellent at two dozen things outside of your profession, when will you pursue all of them? And what is the opportunity cost of being good at two dozen things?

Some abilities do stay with us though through long periods of disuse such as swimming, or riding a bicycle. There are some we need often, e.g., driving a car, which we may even need to do daily, and do it well for our physical safety, and thus, survival.

4. Recognition, reward, and resilience

One outcome of our self-recognition of own competencies and masteries is a need for external recognition and reward, commensurate with our expectations. Our recognition must be realistic (the “reality orientation”) and tempered by knowledge that often the world isn’t fair. But the desire for affirmation should not be a lust for the undeserved; only a need for corroboration—its satisfaction is immensely satisfying to our minds, its frustration upsetting.

We do live in a world that is not fair. Hence, our need for recognition and reward has to be undergirded by resilience—resilience to give us the drive to continue in the face of little appreciation.

5. A need for a genetic legacy (an evolved psychological manifestation)

Organisms are driven biologically to leave a genetic legacy. But we are social animals. And societal norms in various forms—religious, cultural, legal—codify this need (“family values”) so frequently that in many of us it manifests as a psychological need. For human beings, birth control technology separated the sex drive from the biological need to pass on our genes—and our minds are capable of rewiring our brain to some degree. In modern society, the need or desire for a genetic legacy is not felt universally; arguably the genetic legacy need is now purely psychological, evolution has only left us with a sex drive.

6. Visibility as unique individuals

Even though we have evolved in tribes and societies, the self-reflection in individuals creates a deeply-felt need for “individuated visibility.” The Netflix series Crown is an education in human psychology. Members of one of the world’s most privileged families, the British monarchy, became unhappy, frustrated, discontented. Why? Because the monarchy and its traditions mattered more than the individuals who wore or were proximate to the “crown.” The individual was squashed in favor of what was expected of him or her. No amount of money or fame could make up for this loss of visibility of their individuation—their aspirations, their passions, their fears.

Societal norms did bestow an adaptive, survival edge in the past. But not today. Not when the concept of a free, individuated, “trader” society has been fully articulated.[9] There is simply no need for any societal norm to exist anymore.

7. Self-esteem

Our psychological needs exist as a nested network. We must feel worthy of comprehending reality, of experiencing pleasure from recreation as well as the practice of acquired competencies, of seeking gratifying relationships that reaffirm our identity. Our self-worth will come from the practice of being good (showing integrity, courage, honesty and so on) and satisfying other psychological needs, from feeling fulfilled.

8. Relationships

As social animals, we have an evolved need to create a variety of relationships—parent/child, friendships, romance, guardianship, camaraderie, mentorship, that acknowledge, recreate, and extend our sense of self—not necessarily all at the same time. We remember our past successes and envision our futures very often with hope.

9. Flourishing and self-actualization

A state of flourishing can be defined.

A state of flourishing can be defined—as “a locus characterized by a default state of serenity, punctuated by self-inflicted pleasures—those of recreation (wine and music and laughter and food and camaraderie) as well as those arising from practicing competencies (skiing down the slopes) or acquiring them (learning a new language), undergirded by resilience.”

In a default state of disequilibrium, an individual can experience many a pleasure, too—but then they are an escape, and the individual must return to the unpleasant state. The return to an abrasive situation requires repetitive escapes—such as into alcohol or drugs or other addictions. This is a dangerous spiral. One has to address the default state to get out of it, not the immediate symptoms. The “alcohol” addiction is a manifestation. The need for some repetitive escape requires a more fundamental change.

A robust awareness of one’s potentials creates a need—the need to actualize one or a few of them. There’s never enough time to actualize them all—one simply cannot be a good parent and teacher and an excellent golfer and cook, cultivate gardens, run marathons and have multiple, rewarding close friendships while reading an array of books—but there’s no need for this. To drive oneself toward a flourishing state, one has to select from all the potentialities only a few with the largest inner drive including at least one with the potential for monetary reward that can be traded for all sorts of other goods and services.

The awareness of one’s self-potential or of amending our surroundings through struggle or travel can also come from narrative art. Fiction, as Aristotle said, can highlight what the future can be, and it can be taken by the mind as a “should be,” that such a life is possible.

Ultimately, a humane (non-predatory) self-actualization becomes the standard by which a life can be led. That only has the best potential to achieve a flourishing state, but also all other psychological needs.

10. A non-genetic legacy

“Mortality salience” is the awareness of a limited lifespan. This awareness will often create a “need” to leave a mark on the sands of time, particularly as one gets older. But the ideology of our mind—the true ideas that make us practice what we are, not merely proclaim them, affect others we interact with.

In that sense we always leave a non-genetic legacy.

It may help to formalize this, though. And if the desire is felt strongly, it may assist to crystallize it in specific forms—to leave behind a well-functioning business, or well-mannered, high-functioning, happy children (as against just “children as a genetic legacy”), or a monetary donation that funds a cause, or if we leave a legacy in the form of art (paintings, music, literature) or even an academic theory that may survives us.

We could be called, in a sense, “time travelers.”

It’s at first counterintuitive to think that a legacy can contribute to a current state of flourishing. But the future is not a mass of unknowable, random events, it’s merely uncertain—but the probabilities can be assessed today. You may even have the certainty that you created new knowledge, including an affirmation by oneself and by the world of it. You may see, daily even, that your parenting style has created a good legacy, or that your spirit has touched and changed a few others, or even one other person.

Every bit of that knowledge is a source of joy for today, for our perception of the future and our assessment of our own past actions permeate our present. So incessantly that we could be called, in a sense, “time travelers.”

Some well-known psychologists will speak of giving your life meaning, or discovering the meaning of your life as the key to mental health. There’s no divine meaning waiting to be “discovered.” There’s no meaning except the mission, the purpose, the self-defined non-genetic legacy, as given to one’s own life by oneself using self-established standards.

That’s how you become the captain of your soul and the influencer of your fate.

How We Can Grow Together

I hope I have touched you, the reader, with this theory of ten intermingled psychological needs.

Now I will await your touching my soul.

And I hope you will let me know if I have. Here I am, seeking to satisfy my needs—of practicing acquired competencies, of leaving a non-genetic legacy, of reward and recognition, of a reality orientation, and of autonomy. And the beauty of it is that my seeking does not come at your expense; rather, we create a world of self-respecting, individuated camaraderie that moves us together in the same direction—toward a self-actualization and a flourishing.

Now I will await your touching my soul.

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

[2] Ibid, p.1

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

[4] 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

[5] A. H. Maslow, “A Theory of Human Motivation,” in Psychological Review 50, (1943), pp. 370-396.

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

[7] TYB, “10 Deadly Tricksters of the Animal World,” Listverse, accessed at: https://listverse.com/2011/01/15/10-deadly-tricksters-of-the-animal-world/

[8] Vinay Kolhatkar, “A Jaw-Dropping Theory of Consciousness,” The Savvy Street, accessed at: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/a-jaw-dropping-theory-of-consciousness/

[9] See Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand.

10) The term “psychological organism” was first used by John Yokela in my various discussions with him.

11) The work of psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan promotes three key psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and what they refer to as “relatedness”—the last does not encapsulate what we have referred to here under “Relationships.” Nevertheless, their work and research is quite instructive, and has been referred to in the aforementioned essay: “The Number 1 Psychological Need of Human Beings.”
 
Image credit: https://www.cheapsnowgear.com/
 

Related Posts:

1. H*te Conquers All (not really)—or “You’ve Got to be Taught”
2. Hello, CNN: Kaitlyn, Anderson, Jake, Chris—What in Hell Happened?
3. The Second Coming of Donald Trump: What Lies Ahead

   

About the Author: Vinay Kolhatkar

Vinay Kolhatkar is a freelance journalist, novelist, screenwriter, and finance professional. He is the Chief Editor of The Savvy Street. Vinay has authored a TV pilot screenplay Undercover: The Story of Jamila, and two literary thrillers A Sharia London and The Frankenstein Candidate.. He is also the co-author of Media Wars: The Battle to Shape Our Minds. More about Vinay is at the Founder page.