Surviving Childhood Adversity | Hacker News Reader

Surviving Childhood Adversity

mosaicscience.com

59 pointsca98am7919 comments

This article is incredible. According to the Maslow was wrong. Love from others is more important than food, water and shelter. Is this true? I think so. In a very real sense, these other physical needs won't be me unless there is love. The degree of love in our life and resilience in the face of adversity shapes each person in this world.

This does make some sense from an anthropological perspective. For tribal people, being excommunicated from the tribe was a death sentence. This is also the reason that people fear public speaking so much (the risk of losing favor with the tribe).

However, being excommunicated was death sentence because it denied people of basic physical needs such as food, water and shelter. Being lonely is miserable, but what kills you is exposure to cold or starvation.

There's more to it than death by metabolism failure. We are a very social species, it's the biological norm for its members to suffer from forced or imposed loneliness.

Of course, but death by metabolism failure usually comes sooner.

Plenty of kids appear to have survived horrific orphanage experiences, growing up abused, and a complete lack of love. I'm yet to hear of one that made it without food.

> appear to have survived

Plenty of kids appear to have committed suicide due to such experiences. This is a very literal example of "survivorship bias" :-)

But some survived.

How many survived with zero food?

To be clear, I'm arguing the other way around: not that you can survive complete lack of food, but that there are people who did not survive complete lack of love.

That's confusing coincidence with causality. You can't prove "complete lack of love", whatever that means, killed them.

I used "complete lack of love" as a short version of what another commenter wrote: "horrific orphanage experiences, growing up abused, and a complete lack of love".

I can agree that "complete lack of love" is rather hard to define, but are you sure that it's just a coincidence, when an abused, humiliated, tortured person commits suicide?

I'm confident it did cause some of them to commit suicide. I am arguing, as someone else said - some of them made it. Nobody survived without food. Therefore it is silly to suggest love is more fundamental than food to survival.

Their bodies may be alive, but their minds are often dead.

The evidence of people choosing love over survival suggests that there's something to this, though.

I'm thinking of Harlow's monkey studies in particular - there's some evidence that (macaque) infants will choose comfort over food. Certainly food is more directly tied to life, but Maslow's structure carries a lot less weight if people will seek higher tiers even when they lack the basic elements of survival.

The flaw with your analysis is that your independent variable is 'not dying'. There are plenty of other failure modes.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs has been discredited for years now.

It's joined the ranks of Freud and a great many others in sticking around as a big idea in literary analysis.

There seems to be something about that field that leaps at the chance to use the shady, discredited pieces of the other social sciences.

What's the science of human-relationships called? (not exactly anthropology..)

Whatever it is, it feels like it's gotten much less attention than it deserves, going by the affect it can have on our lives.

Great article.

>What's the science of human-relationships called?

I'd say it's a combination of combination of Social psychology [1] and Developmental Psychology[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Psychology [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology

Reply on news.ycombinator.com