Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Freuds Ego, Id and Superego

  1. #1
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Freuds Ego, Id and Superego

    I've read a book of Freud, regarding the personality parts. Although the book was really hard to read, I noticed some clear distinctions with socionics definitions. I've made a simplified comparison (feel free to correct it), with the differences marked in bold.

    ...Freud's Ego: Counscious. The self. Negotiater between the outerworld, id and superego.
    Socionics Ego: Counscious. The self. Negotiater between the outerworld and self.

    ...Freud's Id: Subcounscious. Natural drifts and needs of the body.
    Socionics Id: Subcounscious. Developed but useless part of psyche.

    ...Freud's Superego: Subcounscious. Repressor of the id. Houses moral values and ideal self.
    Socionics Superego: Counscious. Rejected alternative of the ego.

    ...Freud's SuperId: -doesn't exist-.
    Socionics SuperId: Subcounscious. Needs of the psyche.

    My question: why the differences, has Socionics used Freud's personality parts in a wrong way?

  2. #2
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Freud was a coke addict that wanted to fuck his own mother and was not interested in helping people, but viewed humans as all fucked up (well we are, but he saw no hope - ever, when in reality there's always the glimpse of hope, of becoming something better) creatures that he could perform his sick, overly distant experiences on because he became a true sociopath with no feelings for another. He was also a misogynist.

    I guess he was kind of like Ayn Rand though. Right about some shit, wrong about others.

    Why would you take anything he said seriously given the source?

    Psychology is for losers that need more friends because their mental states have become disjointed with their physical bodies, and they can't get along with others because they have projected a false image to the world. Or in turn, they are being correct and other people simply aren't listening- so they're just plain lonely. They're not doing what they're being. Period. That's all it's about. Grr.

  3. #3
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also, in turn:

    Jung was an overly idealistic little boy that never really grew up. So it's hard to hate him but really, he just needed to kinda... I don't know. Stop and grow up. Out of the mystical mental blah blah lands where you could make anything true based on anything and into the here and now, actual reality.

    So psychoanalyze me based on what I just said. I'm just curious.

  4. #4
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, Freud sure was a fucked up individual, but he did get some things right. He also introduced the whole concept of psychoanalysis to modern psychology, which I personally have to thank for my current state of relative sanity.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  5. #5
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was only helped when people taught me there was nothing ever wrong about me, that I needed to simply go out and live more and stop worrying about things and telling sad stories to people. (Which I admit I still like doing only because I don't know, I think it wakes people up in the good way.) But I think they understood me psychologically which was weird. Though they understood how the psychological related to what I needed to do physically, which is why I adored them so much. I think they knew what type I was right away when I talked to them.

    Anyway Jarno as for your question I don't know. I like Freud's ego/id/super ego trinity (and it's been proven he had a lot going with that) but socionics has a lot about group interaction, Freud worked more with individuals did he not? So maybe the disconnect is for that reason only.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Freud's Ego: Model A
    Freud's Superego: relationship between ego and alter ego; the alter ego's suppression by the ego.
    Freud's Id: the alter ego (the background function set in Model B).

  7. #7
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    My question: why the differences, has Socionics used Freud's personality parts in a wrong way?
    I think the socionics authors just used the names, for whatever reasons. They probably shouldn't have, I guess.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  8. #8
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    I think the socionics authors just used the names, for whatever reasons. They probably shouldn't have, I guess.
    Yes, these are my thoughts too.

  9. #9
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, this is what I think:

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    A strong example of an SSS that is fundamental to socionics and concerns the need for easy communication during interpersonal interactions, focusing on the role of dual-seeking functions in the determination of type during early childhood: The undeveloped id awakens and begins to explore the environment. Upon encountering others, the most pleasing IM elements expressed by people (perhaps the ones used by the others to convey understanding and communication or for comforting a baby) are reinforced and become the superid, which is essentially receptive and attentive to the wants of others as the id learns behaviors by imitation and identification (for static types the id learns to associate the extroverted judging of others with itself because it is directed at the id, and becomes an introverted judger; likewise the id associates introverted perceiving in others with extroverted perceiving in itself and becomes an extroverted perceiver); when the id is reproached for not being 'better' at the quasi-identical functions of the superid (which are suppressed in order to give more attentive power to the superid) then the id, which has only IM elements with which to relate and organize, associates the consistently negative functions in itself with inferiority and they collectively become the superego (which begins to take precedence over the superid during the Oedipus Complex). These are constantly accommodated by ego functions, which are used to exploit perceived weaknesses in the superego that eventually accumulate with use. The remaining unused IM elements remain in the id, where they are available at the 'desire' of the id but are not used continuously or systematically. Thus the Primary SSS focuses on the most efficient fixation of the attention on others (which happens to involve dual-seeking functions that are both least resistant and most reinforcing of continuous attention), and the Auxiliary SSS is the exploitation of the superid by the ego. One might ask, 'Why then does not seek ?' This has to do with selfish exploitation. Obviously one extreme in any dichotomy is best exploited by the other (it is not so easy to hide an element-specific SSS from someone who already understands its subtleties and advantages). This tendency is present even in the DNA, where the X chromosome is constantly trying to manipulate the weaker Y chromosome for its own selfish benefit. There is also a symbiotic benefit in complement functions, where positive long-term relations (requiring functional territory as personal space) are naturally selected over others. In a sexually reproducing, socially interacting species as ours, it is not surprising that fitness trends are replicated in the psyche (culminating perhaps in genetic dual-seeking predispositions to aid in sexual selection and conspecific diversity). I hope that from this discussion that it has become conspicuously evident that the superid is ultimately the most important factor in early type determination, because it dictates which IM elements will be used for understanding other people (which is the most important behavior for both young children and for social relations in general, and is also powerful factor in the manifestation of learning preferences and disabilities), and subsequently for adapting to social constraints.

  10. #10
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If put like that, you would expect children to be the dual / semi dual / activity / partner of their mother. Although the story sounds good and is based on logical assumptions, empirical evidence points not in that direction. Nonetheless, very interesting.

  11. #11
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    If put like that, you would expect children to be the dual / semi dual / activity / partner of their mother. Although the story sounds good and is based on logical assumptions, empirical evidence points not in that direction. Nonetheless, very interesting.
    I personally do not think that the mother necessarily plays such a significant role in cognitive development - siblings are often very different from their parents and each other (I don't even share my my parents' quadrant)...it is actually the socion as expressed in society that makes the strongest impression. By Oedipus Complex I was referring to the triumph of the superego over the id.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    I personally do not think that the mother necessarily plays such a significant role in cognitive development - siblings are often very different from their parents and each other (I don't even share my my parents' quadrant)...it is actually the socion as expressed in society that makes the strongest impression. By Oedipus Complex I was referring to the triumph of the superego over the id.
    The mother is an archetype which is identified with the 3rd function. Yes, I know not Freuds ideas... looking too much into Freud is dangerous, and will lead you astray. The man was fixated on sex to the point of irrationality.

  13. #13
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    The mother is an archetype which is identified with the 3rd function. Yes, I know not Freuds ideas... looking too much into Freud is dangerous, and will lead you astray. The man was fixated on sex to the point of irrationality.
    Does that occur in both boys and girls?

  14. #14
    Reflection mirrorsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With my parents. :(
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have a theory about the Id and Ego... I don't know about the Super-Ego or Super-Id yet.

    I think that perhaps in Socionics, the Id is actually part of a type's motivations, but it's not the part that's consciously acknowledged or thought about. People tend to deny their Id in favor of their Ego, because the Ego relates to their sense of identity. When they listen to their Id, they're operating on instinct, on an unconscious level.

    Using Ego functions usually does feed the Id functions to some degree, but without having to engage them directly or consciously, which allows the person to experience more psychologcal comfort than they normally would.

    It's even possible that the Id functions are STRONGER than the Ego functions, but they have to be repressed, because they operate in a very instinctive fashion that cannot be molded to be socially appropriate, or permit a sense of personal identity. The way these functions would be used, also, would differ greatly from how they would be used as Ego functions... the manner would be more spontaneous and less conscious/clear.

    Does that make sense?

  15. #15
    Airman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,556
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Freud was a coke addict that wanted to fuck his own mother and was not interested in helping people, but viewed humans as all fucked up (well we are, but he saw no hope - ever, when in reality there's always the glimpse of hope, of becoming something better) creatures that he could perform his sick, overly distant experiences on because he became a true sociopath with no feelings for another. He was also a misogynist.

    I guess he was kind of like Ayn Rand though. Right about some shit, wrong about others.

    Why would you take anything he said seriously given the source?

    Psychology is for losers that need more friends because their mental states have become disjointed with their physical bodies, and they can't get along with others because they have projected a false image to the world. Or in turn, they are being correct and other people simply aren't listening- so they're just plain lonely. They're not doing what they're being. Period. That's all it's about. Grr.
    lol, you're right
    The only thing I disagree is the extreme view that psychology is for losers. Psychology is not the same as Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalysis is a mental masturbation invented by Freud and much loved by j-ws because you go to them every week two or three times to talk about your 'repressed side' and give them a hell lot of money. After 4 or 5 years you realise you aren't going anywhere with psychoanalysis and just getting worse when you review your childhood traumas and start blaming your parents for everything bad in your life. In 8 years you'll be divorcing from a perfect marriage and in 10 years you'll either become converted to the cult or shoot yourself in the head.

    edit: In socionics, the terms are used with a different meaning. Aushra was just using some concept familiar to psychologists of the time. But she re-invented sort of, the meanings. Id is a part you don't use. Super-Id is a part you have trouble using. Ego is a part you use a lot and prefer to use, and Super-Ego has two parts, the role function is an alternative to the leading function, and the Polr is where you're really fucked up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •