Maslow’s Hierarchy — Familiar but Unfounded

Maslow’s five-stage hierarchy of needs is a staple of psychology textbooks. Physiological needs → Safety → Belonging → Esteem → Self-actualization. It’s intuitively appealing, and the neat pyramid diagram gets cited everywhere.

Yet this theory is surprisingly thin on empirical evidence.

Maslow proposed his model by observing people he personally admired — Lincoln, Einstein, and others. There were no systematic experiments, no large-scale surveys. There’s no empirical answer to “why exactly five stages?” or “why this particular order?” Decades of subsequent research have consistently failed to confirm this hierarchical structure.

It may hold value as a humanistic insight. But as an answer to “how does human motivation actually work?” — it falls short. So is there a better framework?

Kenrick’s Evolutionary Pyramid of Needs

In 2010, evolutionary psychologist Douglas T. Kenrick and his colleagues published “Renovating the Pyramid of Needs.” It reconstructs Maslow’s pyramid at the intersection of evolutionary biology, anthropology, and psychology.

Kenrick’s model retains Maslow’s basic structure — lower needs form the foundation for higher ones — but introduces two fundamental changes.

First, it removes self-actualization from the top.

Second, it replaces it with three reproduction-related goals: mate acquisition, mate retention, and parenting.


graph TB
    subgraph Maslow["Maslow's Pyramid"]
        direction TB
        M1["Physiological"] --- M2["Safety"] --- M3["Belonging/Love"] --- M4["Esteem"] --- M5["Self-actualization"]
    end

    subgraph Kenrick["Kenrick's Pyramid"]
        direction TB
        K1["Survival"] --- K2["Self-protection"] --- K3["Affiliation"] --- K4["Status/Esteem"] --- K5["Mate acquisition"] --- K6["Mate retention"] --- K7["Parenting"]
    end

Furthermore, in Kenrick’s model, each stage doesn’t “replace” the previous one. Even as new motives develop, earlier ones don’t disappear — they operate in overlapping layers. Securing safety doesn’t switch off safety needs once belonging needs emerge; both can be active simultaneously.

Reinterpreting Self-Actualization — It Was a Mating Signal

Kenrick’s most provocative claim is this: the activities Maslow called “self-actualization” — artistic creation, intellectual pursuit, self-transcendence — are not evolutionarily distinct needs. They are means of status acquisition, and status ultimately serves as a signal to increase mating opportunities.

Picasso painting, Einstein pursuing physics — these can be interpreted not as “self-actualization” but as behaviors to gain competitive advantage in status hierarchies. Research does show that creative activity and intellectual achievement increase attractiveness in the mating market.

If this feels like an overreach, consider animals beyond humans.

A Thought Experiment: Animal “Art”

Male white-spotted pufferfish off the coast of Japan construct elaborate geometric circular structures on the sandy seabed. These structures, reaching up to 2 meters in diameter, feature radial patterns and precise symmetry — when first discovered, they were mistaken for mystery circles. Their purpose is singular: attracting a female’s attention.

Male bowerbirds in Australia build complex structures and collect colorful objects — blue petals, bottle caps, seashells — arranging them with meticulous care. They’re simultaneously architects and curators. Some species even exploit forced perspective to make their structures appear larger.

Male birds of paradise in New Guinea perform elaborate dances composed of dozens of distinct movements, transforming their plumage into entirely different shapes. Humpback whales “compose” new songs each breeding season, singing them across hundreds of kilometers.

Can we say these animals have a “self-actualization need”? Under Maslow’s framework, we’d have to — they’re engaging in what can only be called creative activity once survival and safety are secured. But in reality, the function of all these behaviors is identical: gaining advantage in sexual selection.

Kenrick’s argument is that human art, music, and intellectual achievement exist on this same continuum. “Self-actualization” isn’t a higher-order need — it’s merely the human variation of one of evolution’s oldest drives: mating display.

This doesn’t mean “there’s no pure motive in art.” The proximate cause (intrinsic motivation) and the ultimate cause (evolutionary function) are distinct levels of explanation. Why you enjoy music (proximate) and why music preference evolved (ultimate) are different questions. What Maslow did wrong was establish “self-actualization” as a separate need category — the result of explaining humans through proximate causes alone while ignoring the ultimate cause.

Dance, Sports, Music — Honest Signals of the Nervous System

Let’s push this perspective further. How did music originate?

Darwin connected the origin of music to sexual selection in “The Descent of Man” (1871) — proposing it began as a mating signal, much like birdsong. Geoffrey Miller extended this in “The Mating Mind” (2000), arguing that musical ability is a cognitive fitness indicator — a costly signal of genetic quality. The reason Paganini’s virtuosity moves us is that “accomplishing something difficult” is itself a signal of genetic health.

But let’s take one more step. Dance likely preceded music.

Dance is a direct display of motor ability. But what’s crucial here is that dance doesn’t merely show brute strength. It reveals the precise integration of sensory and motor nervous systems — the developmental level of the entire neural architecture. Processing auditory input in real-time, coordinating dozens of muscles at millisecond precision, accurately perceiving one’s position in space. This is an unfakeable honest signal of how precisely the brain-body connection has been constructed.

Sports work the same way. A footballer’s dribbling, a basketball player’s fake motion, a gymnast’s landing — these impress us not because of muscular power. It’s the real-time processing of sensory information, the precise output of motor commands, and the speed and accuracy of that feedback loop. The bird of paradise’s dance is exactly this. Executing complex movements with precision is itself the message: “my nervous system is precisely developed.”

Musical performance fits the same framework. A pianist’s finger independence, a violinist’s micro-adjustments of pitch — these are nothing other than the auditory expression of sensorimotor neural precision. Miller’s point about “why virtuosity moves us” ultimately comes down to this: it honestly transmits genetic quality information in the form of neural developmental level.

For early humans, dance was the most direct means of displaying this neural precision. And music may have originated as a tool to enhance this dance. Rhythm enables collective synchronization; beat improves movement precision. Archaeological evidence shows percussion as the oldest instruments, suggesting that rhythm (dance accompaniment) preceded melody.

In other words, music may not be a product of “self-actualization” but originated as a tool to enhance mating display (dance). The most “higher-order” human activity we can imagine has its evolutionary roots in our most primal drive.

Digital Services — Modern Triggers for Evolved Needs

Viewed through this framework, much about modern digital services becomes explainable.

Social Media: Status Display Platforms

Twitter/X follower counts, Instagram likes, YouTube subscribers — these are all quantified status. In our evolutionary environment, status competition involved perhaps 150 people in a tribe. Social media expanded this competition to the entire world.

The rush you feel when follower counts rise isn’t “self-actualization.” It’s closer to an evolutionary reward signal for gaining status advantage.

Mobile Games: Status Competition Simulations

Ranking systems, leveling up, rare item collection — the core loops of mobile games are almost entirely simulations of status competition. Clan wars simulate inter-tribal conflict, rankings replicate intra-group hierarchy, and rare items reproduce resource display.

These games are addictive not because they’re “fun,” but because they precisely stimulate the evolved need for status competition.

Dating Apps: Direct Implementation of the Mating Market

Tinder, Bumble, and similar apps are the most direct implementation of the “mate acquisition” stage in Kenrick’s model. Profile photo selection, bio writing, swipe mechanics — every element is designed for mating display.

Content Creation Platforms: Self-Actualization or Status Signal?

Blogs, YouTube, newsletters — packaged as “self-expression,” but would creators maintain the same passion without views and subscriber counts as status metrics? Platforms expose these metrics prominently, converting creation into status competition.

When you obsess over follower counts or over-invest in game rankings, it’s worth distinguishing whether it’s “your choice” or “a response to designed stimuli.” But a more fundamental question remains.

Where Does Human Dignity Lie?

The attempt to ground human dignity in “being a creature with higher-order needs” is no different from dualism. If pufferfish architecture and human art serve the same evolutionary function, then claiming “only humans self-actualize” is structurally identical to claiming “only humans have souls.” It declares a special essence for humans without observable evidence.

Maslow’s self-actualization is the secular version of this dualism. It posits “something higher-order that animals lack but humans possess,” and claims this is what makes humans special. But as we’ve seen, the substance of this “higher-order need” is mating display — something pufferfish do too.

If humans are distinct from other species, it’s not in the “higher-order nature” of our needs. It’s in the technological means by which we fulfill identical needs. Pufferfish make circles from sand; humans build cities from concrete. Birds of paradise spread their plumage; humans display themselves to millions via social media. The needs are the same. Only the scale of the means differs.

Rather than grounding human dignity in a fictitious “higher-order need,” find it in the tangible gap in technological capability — that is the honest self-awareness available to us.

Reference: Douglas T. Kenrick et al., “Renovating the Pyramid of Needs: Contemporary Extensions Built Upon Ancient Foundations”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2010.