Correcting the pyramids

By and large, the world is slowing down a bit [sic] already again towards the Summer lull. Which gives us plenty of time to get rid of old habits. And of misconceptions.
The famous pyramids are one (huh) of them, definitely.
Compare the standard picture you’ve all become accustomed to, to ‘For instance, he wrote that a man who struggles to feed himself “may fairly be said to live by bread alone.” Maslow, however, “was quick to point out that such situations are rare,” the authors explain. Instead, he felt that most people “are partially satisfied in all their basic needs and partially unsatisfied in all their basic needs at the same time.”‘ from this.

Yes. I didn’t say that I referenced those predecessors by a handful of centuries of the picture, like, in Egypt, Central America, and elsewhere, as idealised forms in stone of said picture quite a bit avant la lettre; where did you get that idea ..??

Two more then, with the Why I write this all up in the first place:
‘As Bridgman and his fellow researchers note, the hierarchy concept “captured the prevailing [post-war] ideologies of individualism, nationalism and capitalism in America and justified a growing managerialism in bureaucratic (i.e., layered triangular) formats.”‘ and
‘Fowler finds that many executives use the pyramid as “an excuse to not have to deal with people’s psychological issues,” and to set their more complex needs aside. Says Fowler, “It’s kind of like, ‘Well, we can’t afford to give this to everybody at the bottom of the pyramid, so we’ll just assume they’re not going to be motivated by higher-order reasons.’”

Another ill-effect she links to Maslow’s hierarchy is the belief that: “If I made more money, I would be happier. Or, if I had those security needs taking care of, I would be happier, or more motivated to do my job,” says Fowler. “People get trapped in that,” she argues, “and yet if money was the solution, we wouldn’t see any rich people who suffer. They wouldn’t have divorces or become drug addicts or commit crimes.”
Most damning, perhaps, is the pyramid’s insinuation that there is a finite amount of space at “the top,” and we are all competing against each other to get there. “Really,” says Fowler, “people are ‘self-actualizing’ all over the place.”’
Indeed, when you read the whole darn piece it isn’t difficult at all once you gain elementary school proficiency in reading [oh hey may that take some time still? You an executive?], you’ll see that an idea warped to suit consultants’ needs [infinite recursion then, qua satisfaction], will almost invariably lead to enormities qua externalities.

Now there‘s something to fight against…

Oh and:

[Triangles, anyone? Not here! Porto, obviously]