Wikipedia defines pain as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience often associated with actual or potential tissue damage." Some classifications included were nociceptive, neuropathic, psychogenic, phantom, pain asymbolia. The full definition will not be pursued further in this chapter.

It is understood that the fear of pain (or the sensation itself) often motivates us to withdraw from potentially damaging situations and we learn to avoid such scenarios in future. However, they could also motivate us to do the complete opposite, to create a willingness to put ourselves in an unfavourable position, far from our pre-defined comfort zone.

To attempt to explain the phenomenon, a cross-reference is made to the the theory of motivation. And the theory suggests that the inner motivation usually comes from the conventional belief that good grades in school will help us achieve our desired goals (e.g. ideal job). Then, when we move on to take up jobs we hate because we believe that the money or status from that job will improve the quality of life and thus a happier self-being. Some of us may even consider the extremes (e.g. committing crimes) if we think that it is necessary to achieve that. And happiness is that stark belief that the future will be better because of today's sacrifice and the mind looks forward to a presumed positive certainty in the future although logically, (or, by murphy's law, anything that can go wrong, will go wrong) nothing is certain until its occurence.

An acquaintance once shared a story. Employees are jumping off buildings and in their last notes, they stated that the job was "too boring." Remove the doubts and however absurd the whole story sounds, let's just assume that usually rational people have the potential to do irrational things during extremely unfavourable external or internal conditions. In this case, was the absence of challenge or being in the comfort zone for too long considered extremely unfavourable?

To make sense of this phenomena, we were led back to the same model that Maslow came up with. Was it flawed?

By large, in his widely publicized paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, Maslow broadly categorized the needs stated into two types - psychological and physiological.

The lower ends of the pyramid, which I would label as external needs, includes the need to survive, need to be loved, etc etc. where the sources of satisfaction comes from beyond the internal self. When these needs are met, why is it possible for a person to be dissatisfied or unhappy?

This leads to talk about self-actualization in the highest hierarchy. Conveniently, these should be labeled as internal needs because the motivation comes from within. Although self-perception may be influenced by external factors like peer, family or media influence, it is largely a very personal choice. Though theories of social engineering may be brought up here, the human will may be twisted but never controlled directly through an external mean. It is probable that psychotic hypnotism can influence a person's behaviour but it cannot directly alter his personal beliefs or views on issues. In other words, there is no way to "mind control" any person with the sanity in mind.

That is why even though the human brain was the most extensively studied part of the human body, the human psychology can never be quantised or become absolute or become a purely scientific topic rather than social science. Psychology can only propose and not predict future behaviour and thoughts of a human being.

The idea of self-actualisation is very simple. It is how we see ourselves yet difficult to understand from another person's perspective. To most people, perhaps the definition of happiness varies to a certain degree. Other than the sense of security, the sense of accomplishment is a much more complex idea to pursue, especially if it varies at different stages in life. As we mature or if the external conditions have changed, our life goals probably follow suit.