Introduction
When I was younger and being told what to learn and what to do, I was introduced to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This theory sets out a ladder of human needs and assumes that the higher you climb the ladder, the happier you will be. At the top of the ladder (at the time) was Self - Actualization which to this day I’ve never really understood. I would have rather scored a wining goal in the FA cup final than Self Actualised. Today I would ask, how does a never ending endeavour to learn and self improve fit into a hierarchy? As far as I’m concerned I’m ignorant and flawed and project Prew will never end. You can never reach all that you can become, because it is a moving target that you can never hit. If you get close to your goals, you can obviously achieve even higher goals.
Know Yourself
I used to be a construction project manager, and because this gave me a comfortable life style, the proceeds of which I continue to live off, I think I can conclude that I was good at it. I was lucky enough to be able to look at a project, clearly define the objectives, recognise the risks, eliminate the risks, organise people and motivate them, so that when it was all over, there was much back slapping and self congratulation at the pile of cash the client had made. Unfortunately they never slapped my back. “Ah Trevor, that project was easy“, they'd say “We didn’t really need to employ you, did we?” Or another comment would be “Trev - all those worries and risks you talked about at the start, none of them happened did they?” "No of course they didn't, I had managed them out of existence" I would think to myself. So, I had worked damn hard, on some very high risk projects, and no one understood or appreciated what I had done. It felt so unfair, but I suppose I shouldn’t complain, they always paid my fee invoice on time and the contracts kept landing on my desk.
Seek First to Understand
So from my personal perspective, project success was not enough, I also wanted to be recognised by my clients and colleagues, my social group, as a great project manager. When this was once again deigned me, on what I considered to the be riskiest project I ever pulled off (total project failure was very probably - an unusable building or total collapse at completion!) I decided to put two fingers up to the construction world and retire. If my social group didn’t appreciate me, they can all go and hang!
So does the importance of social group approval apply to others or is it just my problem? Well lets think about scientists.
What would be the pinnacle of a Scientists career? “To discover some great fundamental truth of the world” you might say, but is this enough? If you discovered a unified grand theory that was completely true but no one acknowledged it as such, you would certainly be self actualized, but would you be happy?. It would probably drive you mad, knowing what you knew, but no one is listening or understanding. It would be like Cassandra, being given the gift of the ability to predict the future, but no one believing your predictions. It would make you howl with frustration.
So I say the pinnacle of a scientist's career is not only to make a great discovery but also to get a Nobel for it, which means he/she will forever have the adulation of the scientific social group, and if its noticed by the public, the whole world. Richard Feynman wrote about the proudest day of his life was when he drove into the university car park and parked next to all the other Nobel prize winners. So for him the pinnacle of his career was a coveted parking space! Social group acceptance confirmed!*
Darwin, when he had worked out the details of natural selection, and had written Origin, which is one of the great leaps in human understanding, what did he do? He hid the manuscript in a draw and didn’t publish for over a decade. Why did he do this? It makes no sense. But if you look at it from a social group perspective, it makes perfect sense. He knew that if he published, his group, that was dominated by creationist Christian thinking, would lead to nothing but trouble, namely group rejection. So he hid it away. It wasn’t until Russell independently came up with the same theory that he decided to come out and jointly they introduced the theory of natural selection to the world. At least he had a social group of two, him and Russell.
So based on my own experience and a couple of examples, (that's good enough for me because I'm lazy and easily bored!!) I propose that the pinnacle of human endeavour is group adulation, and the larger the group the better. If you achieve fame and glory you will even achieve everlasting group acceptance, as your name will be remembered forever.
(The above has a heavy male bias. A Women’s opinion or examples would be very welcome)
Better to go to Troy, young Achilles, and achieve everlasting fame, than stay at home and live like a sheep.
In my essay “How to prevent War” I proposed that the primary motivation for humans is to reproduce, because it’s programmed into our selfish genes. Am I not contradicting myself with the above? Well not if you ask why do people crave group acceptance? Lots of group acceptance means more people will like you and that means more sex and therefore more reproduction if male or better genes to choose if female. But why seek everlasting fame after you have reproduced? Well your genes want to be passed on, not just to the next generation, but also into all the future generations to come. If you are famous, wont all your children be attractive too? And their children also? This makes sense to me, rather than a hierarchy of needs. High group acceptance ie status (and the power and wealth that goes with it) gives your genes an advantage in the natural selection game, now and well into the future. This explains why hereditary honours were the most coveted reward a monarch could bestow on a loyal subject. It rewards not just your self but your future generations.
But choose your social group wisely.
*I’m sure I read this in “Surely you are joking Mr Feynman” but I can’t find it - there’s no index. It may have been a different Nobel prize winner altogether!!! I hope you can accept the point I’m making anyway. Perhaps it’s in “Chaos” a book I obtained from the library, so I don‘t have a copy to check.
