Triangles

Triangles are everywhere: psychology, sociology, math, art, Bermuda.

First up for scrutiny is Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which theorizes that each lower level of the pyramid must be fulfilled in order for the individual to progress to a higher level, which may make sense in terms of architecture and gravity, but in application to real human beings becomes presumptuous.

Many of us still must function without sufficient rest (tier 1), or do not feel secure or safe in our environment (tier 2), yet we carry on with achieving our potential/creative activities (tier 5) even with problematic self esteem (tier 4). Also, if one is in immediate danger (burning building, possible death by water), physiological needs are obviously not the most urgent concern (well, maybe oxygen). And not every high-achieving person has the good fortune to find love or feel a sense of belonging in their relationships.

Speaking of failures of intimacy, Robert Sternberg took it on himself to describe all the kinds of love we may or may not have experienced, or ever will. This triangle may have been designed specifically to make married people feel bad. 

Some experience brief infatuations, the empty love of commitment, or merely like someone. What Sternberg prizes and places in the middle of his triangle, ideal love, combines intimacy, passion, and commitment. In this age of cynicism, however, it's hard to toss around the word love this much without miming the act of spewing vomit. 

Not to be confused with the abdominal thrusts of the (Henry) Heimlich maneuver, (Herbert) Heinrich's triangle theory points out the statistical truth that the more risks people take, the more likely something is to go wrong. Tell that to teenagers who think they are indestructible cheerleaders. Maybe not once, and maybe not in this cluster, but eventually, the dreaded all-or-nothing never-events will occur, with severity ranging from minor to fatal.

No former (or perhaps current) instructor really wants to talk about Bloom's Taxonomy for fun. Don't bother reading the tiny print. It's the pedagogical equivalent of flogging a dead, rainbow unicorn/horse. Sometimes asking for critical thinking (or spikes in brain activity) is asking too much.

Even the FDA has abandoned the food pyramid (old news from 1992) in favor of a newer model, because some color blocks with no numbers are about all people can handle in this age of the internet. The more something looks like iPad icons the better. No need to remind people to intake fats, either (looking at you, keto diet).

At least these final ones are pretty. Poetic, really. The Chinese use the phrase, 看人臉色, observing the colors on someone's face, to describe reading people's moods (and having to cater to them). Do they look serene? melancholic? serious? Do we want to deal with that right now?