I wish I had read the prompts earlier as it is driving me nuts that I can’t find the moment in the book where Lieberman explicitly states that scholars are often on both sides but that the argument should really be seen as a combination.

Anyway,

Lieberman claims that “what all mammalian infants, from tree shews to human babies, really need from the moment of birth is a caregiver who is committed to making sure that the infant’s biological needs are met. If this is true, Maslow had it wrong. To get it right, we have to move social needs to the bottom of his pyramid. Food, water, and shelter are not the most basic needs of the infant. Instead, being socially connected and cared for is paramount” (43).

As stated in his above claim, Lieberman is refuting Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (image can be found on page 42) that specifies “physiological and safety needs are really fundamental needs with a capital N. The rest of the pyramid consists of “nice if you can get them needs”…” (42).

I find a lot of Gaipa’s strategies difficult to identify as they have a bit in a common. Here I think we can consider the situation “picking a fight” because Lieberman clearly and explicitly states that Maslow is wrong. However, Lieberman is aware that Maslow’s capital N needs must be met, just that the way they are met in mammals is through the commitment of a caregiver. Due to the fact that Maslow’s needs must still be met for survival, and cannot be considered lowercase n needs, I think the argument could also be considered “piggybacking.” Lieberman takes Maslow’s argument and applies it to the social world of humans, and mammalian animals in general, thereby complicating but not truly refuting Maslow’s pyramid. Lastly, this could also be “leapfrogging” because Lieberman has identified a problem in Maslow’s work, the way in which humans can attain the basic needs, and solves the problem. I’m not sure if I am not understanding the strategies or oversimplifying them but I see evidence for all three here.