What does Ego, Super-Ego, Super-Id, and Id mean?

[Creepy-male]

So in model A you will have for example:

LII

Ego =>
Super-Ego =>
Super-Id =>
Id =>


Besides just being places to put function, what does the ego/super-ego/super-id/id really mean.... and I mean beyond the basics... like weak/valued stuff....

Like the Super-Ego.... I know its weak/undervalued.... by why is it weak/undervalued.... and why is it called Super-Ego... does it represent anything psychologically?

Edit

Please be helpful, I'm trying to construct a new model.... but there is a lot I must understand first

[Azeroffs]

The ego functions are considered to be your identity. Everything you consciously do is either based on or highly influenced by those elements. They describe core motivations. Areas of confidence and leadership.

The super-ego functions are elements you're consciously aware of, but weakly. So, you feel as though you should be better at them. The reason why they are weak is because they oppose your ego functions. If your ego function is external then the super-ego is internal (e.g. Se vs Ne). Maybe a good analogy would be that the ego and super-ego both look at the same box (dynamic or static), but if you're inside the box you can't see the outside, and vice versa. They are socially normalizing. You tend to view them as societal expectations on yourself, so you may consciously ignore, fight, or attempt (but often fall short) to achieve things related to them. Areas of struggle and anxiety.

The super-Id is essentially a blind-spot in your cognition. Not only are you weakly aware of it, but it's also outside of your mental focus. Things related to the elements in the super-Id is what you expect of others. You subconsciously expect these things to be done and taken care of because you expect to not focus on them. The reason for this is that your ego functions often rely on these assumptions in order produce something. While the connection between complimentary elements isn't 100% clear to me, the best example I can think of is that part of the reason Se-egos are so instinctual and spontaneous is that they subconsciously make assumptions about consequences and chains of events (Ni-super-Id). Areas of expectation.

It's also important to note that Se-ego is synonymous with Ni-super-Id (and Ne-super-ego and Si-Id for that matter.) It's best to not view them as separate things but instead as just different names for the same thing. They are all connected and caused by each other. Weak unconscious Ni causes strong conscious Se. Weak conscious Fe causes strong conscious Te, etc.

The Id is our subconscious strength. It can be viewed as a byproduct of focusing on our ego-elements. In focusing on our ego elements we will often be dealing with these elements unconsciously. They are unnecessary to our ego, but since we are so involved with them they are viewed as an obvious irrelevance. There is no need to verbalize or make a big deal out of these things, and we relieve and disarm any focus on these elements which can be a relief for some and an irritation for others. Areas of disinterest and conscious disregard.

From another perspective (possibly a more Freudian one), the Id can be viewed as our most basic self, or our core self, and from it stems a mental focus on our ego elements. However, we still don't focus on this consciously and so the outcome is the same. The information related to it is innately known and consciously uninteresting.

[Jarno]

Ego, SuperEgo and Id are names that are derived from Sigmund Freud's model of personality.

They had totally different meanings in his model, therefor it's a bit confusing what Augusta really meant with it.

To summarize Freuds ideas:

Ego: The negotiator between Id, Superego and outer world.
SuperEgo: The moral counscious, based on guilt
Id: Natural impulses, based on pleasure

[Creepy-male]

They had totally different meanings in his model, therefor it's a bit confusing what Augusta really meant with it.

Lol what did Augusta really mean though?

[Creepy-male]

The ego functions are considered to be your identity. Everything you consciously do is either based on or highly influenced by those elements. They describe core motivations. Areas of confidence and leadership.

The super-ego functions are elements you're consciously aware of, but weakly. So, you feel as though you should be better at them. The reason why they are weak is because they oppose your ego functions. If your ego function is external then the super-ego is internal (e.g. Se vs Ne). Maybe a good analogy would be that the ego and super-ego both look at the same box (dynamic or static), but if you're inside the box you can't see the outside, and vice versa. They are socially normalizing. You tend to view them as societal expectations on yourself, so you may consciously ignore, fight, or attempt (but often fall short) to achieve things related to them. Areas of struggle and anxiety.

The super-Id is essentially a blind-spot in your cognition. Not only are you weakly aware of it, but it's also outside of your mental focus. Things related to the elements in the super-Id is what you expect of others. You subconsciously expect these things to be done and taken care of because you expect to not focus on them. The reason for this is that your ego functions often rely on these assumptions in order produce something. While the connection between complimentary elements isn't 100% clear to me, the best example I can think of is that part of the reason Se-egos are so instinctual and spontaneous is that they subconsciously make assumptions about consequences and chains of events (Ni-super-Id). Areas of expectation.

It's also important to note that Se-ego is synonymous with Ni-super-Id (and Ne-super-ego and Si-Id for that matter.) It's best to not view them as separate things but instead as just different names for the same thing. They are all connected and caused by each other. Weak unconscious Ni causes strong conscious Se. Weak conscious Fe causes strong conscious Te, etc.

The Id is our subconscious strength. It can be viewed as a byproduct of focusing on our ego-elements. In focusing on our ego elements we will often be dealing with these elements unconsciously. They are unnecessary to our ego, but since we are so involved with them they are viewed as an obvious irrelevance. There is no need to verbalize or make a big deal out of these things, and we relieve and disarm any focus on these elements which can be a relief for some and an irritation for others. Areas of disinterest and conscious disregard.

From another perspective (possibly a more Freudian one), the Id can be viewed as our most basic self, or our core self, and from it stems a mental focus on our ego elements. However, we still don't focus on this consciously and so the outcome is the same. The information related to it is innately known and consciously uninteresting.

Thanks, good post, I appreciate your efforts at explaining this.

Hmm what is it that prevents a function from simultaneously existing in two blocks... like why can't a function in the ego be also in the super-ego... why does the existence of having a function in the ego imply the positions of other elements... what is the connection between information elements and how this is connected to the four blocks.

[Creepy-male]

Hmm what is it that prevents a function from simultaneously existing in two blocks... like why can't a function in the ego be also in the super-ego... why does the existence of having a function in the ego imply the positions of other elements... what is the connection between information elements and how this is connected to the four blocks.

When observing an individual, the four blocks are basically just the expanded form of the ego block, much like how
a^2 + 2ab + b^2
is the expanded for of
(a+b)^2

So for example a Si base, due to having their focus subsumed in their relationship with here-and-now information, will...

Well, Azeroffs did the work for me. I understand complementarity a lot better than I do competing internal/external functions To clarify: complementary pairs are formed because a conscious focus on one element has the cost of being unaware of yet in need of information from it's complement: Si is totally "in" its responses to sensory stimuli, so obviously has a large blind spot with respect to anything such as potential or long-range strategic importance or other "Ne stuff", which is obviously in a totally different realm to Sensory stuff.

Anyway, it occurs to me that I think I understand what you're asking about now...

As for the Role function, it's something lesser and weaker because it's a competing form of similar information to the Base function, so it's sort of like that wimpy conker that gets knocked out by the bigass Chuck Norris beefstick conker.

The Ignoring function I would then guess is the natural complement to your Base function in terms of, the Extraverted function is the object's traits being studied (eg Se, "red ball", "big ball", "HOT BITCHEZ!!!" (or something like that)) and the Introverted function serving as your means of accessing that object (eg Si "lovely warm red", "sensuously voluptuous"). Obviously your psyche has to prefer one over the other...

So I suppose Model A is about a relationship of informational preferences.

As for why these preferences exist, it's just an assumption the model is built around, I guess?

Now, the expansion is also helpful because it makes it clear (except in fairly convoluted cases like Supervision and Benefit) why relations will pan out the way they do by connecting up the different function positions (which is still implicit in an unexpanded two-element representation, but continuing the above algebra analogy, would you rather manipulate the expanded or contracted form? lol)

[Timeless]

Please be helpful, I'm trying to construct a new model.... but there is a lot I must understand first

Well, I can help construct these images for you:

[Azeroffs]

All good questions that I'm not sure I can answer entirely accurately, but I can at least give you my thoughts.

Hmm what is it that prevents a function from simultaneously existing in two blocks... like why can't a function in the ego be also in the super-ego...

Well, by definition the base and creative are the ego block. I'm not sure how to answer that. However, if by "function", you mean "element", I would think that the mind is going to focus on something. Whatever you spend a lot of time focusing on will become an area of confidence, and so it seems that there will be at least one area of confidence. We can call this "ego." The mind has a finite ability to build knowledge and acquire data, so in focusing on one aspect of reality, other aspects are neglected, so there will be other areas that we can focus on but that we often overlook in preference to the opposing aspect of reality. (spend so much time on the inside of the box, that the outside is not as familiar.) We can just call this neglected aspect of reality "super-ego."

Opposing arguments could be made I'm sure, but I would think that spending equal amounts of time on opposing elements would be inefficient and leave you weak at both. Is it conceivable that one could spend equal amounts of time on opposing elements? I guess it is. So I don't really have any way of explaining that. Some believe that types are continuous rather than 16 discrete types. In other words, You could be perfectly in the middle between ENTj and ESTj or ENTj and ENFj, and you be anywhere between.

why does the existence of having a function in the ego imply the positions of other elements...

This is my understanding:

Lets say for instance we are given an Se-base. Se and Ne both focus on a similar aspect of reality (static objects) .. (or in another perspective, are similar ways of processing data rather than aspects of reality itself) .. When the Se-base spends as much time on Se as he does he loses his awareness of Ne, however his primary focus is still on static objects, and so Ne isn't as weak as say his PoLR element. His PoLR element (lets just say Ti) is so weak because in order to really understand Se he sometimes focuses on Fi. He needs static fields to aid him in his focus on static objects, but it is just that, an aid. So he only needs some static fields. A little Fi here and there is all he needs for that, so static fields are relatively neglected when compared to static objects.

When it comes to the vital functions, things become less clear to me. The SEE from our example is mentally focused on static aspects, but he still lives in a world filled with dynamic aspects. While he is not consciously aware, he is dealing with it all the time. Dynamic reality is merely the opposite side of static reality. Ni is the aspect of reality least dealt with of the subconscious. Ni is in every way opposite of Se. Focusing on Se means you're miles away from Ni. Almost no Ni information is able to come to a mind focusing on Se without aid. Ni is weak Se, just as strong Se is weak Ni. Being spontaneous, hasty, and instinctual means you often neglect planning, reflection, and imagination. Of course these characteristics are only byproducts of the elements, but I think it shows that it only seems logical that as one element becomes stronger, it's compliment becomes weaker. And this is how the vital functions are set up in relation to the mental ones. (4d base/1d suggestive, 3d creative/2d HA, 2d role/3d ignoring, 1d PoLR/4d demonstrative.)

what is the connection between information elements and how this is connected to the four blocks.

Basically, the elements are connected by the fact that they are all ways of interpreting reality, and there is some overlap in these different ways. The blocks just represent the way in which we prioritize the elements.

[Azeroffs]

When observing an individual, the four blocks are basically just the expanded form of the ego block, much like how
a^2 + 2ab + b^2
is the expanded for of
(a+b)^2

I like this analogy

[Jarno]

Lol what did Augusta really mean though?

I wondered that too.

So far, I've noticed this:

Ego: straight forward, the most used functions, and your most important personality part according to Freud. So here Augusta and Freud agree.

Super Ego: it is written in the superego relationship description that the partner is seen as a distant ideal. Well Freud sais that in the superego there houses the 'Ego Ideal'. Whatever he meant with that, it sounds as if Augusta is on a right track.

Id: If I remember correctly, the Id is largely uncounscious, so that is in agreement with the position that Augusta gave it. For the rest not much similarity.

Super id: Freud has never written anything about that, it's invented by Augusta just to occupy the last block...

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-male]

....

Wow very helpful...

What is the nature of these IJ, EP, EJ, and IP channels... like graphically, what does the circuit look like?

Also, what is caregiver, infantile, aggressor, victim, etc...

Finally, how does accepting and producing come into this....

This particular thing about channels will be helpful in my model.

[Creepy-male]

So as long as the Super-Ego means exactly the opposite approach to the same things, in respect of the functions of the Ego, how could it mean the Ego functions as well?

This of course is based on the axiom that certain functions are antagonists... which for now I'm content with to a certain degree, but I'm not willing to take it as the gospel truth yet... there of course is the possibility more is going on behind the scenes with these functions... but as far as model A is concerned the concept of antagonizing functions is a very solid first approach to the science of personality imo.

My model I'm developing doesn't deal with this concept... its a more dynamic model of the psyche... but in order to have things move around I must first understand the relationships between the functions well and understand how their position in certain areas implies their position in other areas, and what those areas mean.

[Azeroffs]

Also, what is caregiver, infantile, aggressor, victim, etc...

caregiver - the super-id-functions - they balance out your unconscious channels and strengtens your "ego-functions"
victim - your super-ego-functions, seemingly liking the stress your unconscious ID functions place on you
aggressor - your id-functions (they "aggress"/stress your ego-functions and support the stressful super-ego
infantile - your ego-functions

The classic aggressor-victim-caregivar-infantile is seen from a Ne perspective, disregarding that other types are stressed by other functions than Se, etc.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but if I understand correctly, wouldn't it make more sense like this:

Aggressor is your ego functions because you take charge in them
infantile is your super-ego functions because you misuse them
victim is your super-id because you are incapable of them.
caregiver is your-id because you relieve them.

in other words, it's from the perspective of Se-egos. It seems like this is a reference to 1981slater's post about mental-aggressors, emotional aggressors, etc.

In his idea, ego-extrovert elements are aggressive in the area they focus on. (e.g. Se-physical aggressor, Fe-emotional aggressor). Ego-introvert elements are caregivers in that area. (e.g. Ni-spiritual caregiver, Ti-mental caregiver.) Extrovert elements in the super-ego are infantile, and introvert elements are victims. Classic aggressor/victim etc refers to the physical perspective.

---------------

Caregiver, Victim, Aggressor, and infantile in classic socionics just refers to the ways in which types approach romance. They're just a way of understanding how the types manifest behaviorally and probably wouldn't be of much use in creating a new model.

[Azeroffs]

blahblahblah...

If you had cared to read my first post and understood it, you'd have seen why what I wrote made sense. But feel free to make your own system.

I read your earlier post, and I do like how you explain the opposition of ego and super-ego as fighting for the same channel. However, your use of caregiver/infantile etc doesn't make sense.

You state that Ne sees Se as an aggressor and Si as a caregiver. So Ne sees other Ne's as infantile.. and also Se's see other Se's as infantile? In what way? The part you explained makes sense by itself, but it seems like you didn't fully develop it.

The romance styles are meant to be objective. You're trying to place them into a subjective mold that doesn't work as far as I see. The idea of romance styles is that all types will see Se-egos as aggressive, and that types will respond differently to that.

This is why I like 1981slater's approach. He explains that each type will be aggressive, infantile, etc in one shape or form, and that the classic romance styles only explain the physical portion. ("aggressors" being only physical aggressors, and "infantiles" being only physical infantiles.)

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Azeroffs]

Sorry I was so impatient.



Of course the words "infantile", "aggressor", "caregiver" and "victim" make more sense when talking about Se-Ni vs Si-Ne, but that's only because Si is what creates mental comfort for a Ne-ego. For a Se-ego, mental comfort follows Ni, for a Te-ego, mental comfort follows Fi, etc. The dual functions (super-id-functions) will always create mental comfort (caregive) you, no matter what type you are. Also in romantic relationships.

One should probably find better words, like stressors and relaxers, or something like that, to make it better, and to not confuse it with the romantic attitudes, as you did. I just used those words to highlight that what normally is seen as a Se-Ne-Si-Ni relation, also exists between the rational functions, and for all types.



With a dual, you will feel relaxed on some level (taken care of) no matter what type you are. It's just a matter of what kind of relaxation it gives. Ethical, sensory, logical or intuitive. An SLE will feel intuitive comfort with an IEI, an ILE will feel physical comfort with an SEI and an LIE will feel ethical comfort with an ESI. The dual functions "caregive" the ego-functions by strengthening the unconscious super-id-functions and that way weakening the unconscious id-functions that again weakens the super-ego in the model I described. It's plain model A (and I don't even believe in model A, thus my impatience in explaining).

Okay, I see what you are getting at, and I agree. I just didn't like the comparison to romance styles. What you're explaining is a more internal perspective of interaction. The romance styles are external interactions.

Yeah, but that system has an entirely different base, and doesn't explain the mental discomfort people feel when not having ds and HA functions around strengthening their ego (caregiving them).

It's not really a system that's meant to explain that. It's just a behavioral manifestation, like the classic romance styles, that may explain how external interaction might unfold.

[Azeroffs]

...

I see. I would just like a clear explanation of how rational compliments interact. One as clear as the romance styles for irrational elements. Surely there must be some way to label them in the way that Se is labeled aggressor.

maybe a topic for another thread

[mu4]

Super id: Freud has never written anything about that, it's invented by Augusta just to occupy the last block...

Super-id is anima/animus as related to Jung and not Freud.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_and_animus]Anima and animus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

I relate the blocks to operant conditioning on information.

Ego = Negative Reinforcement
Super-Ego = Positive Punishment
Super-Id = Positive Reinforcement
Id = Negative Punishment

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Not A Communist Shill]

Super-id is anima/animus as related to Jung and not Freud.

Anima and animus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I relate the blocks to operant conditioning on information.

Ego = Negative Reinforcement
Super-Ego = Positive Punishment
Super-Id = Positive Reinforcement
Id = Negative Punishment

This seems a very good and simple way of summing them up and making a wider connection with general behavioural psychology (although with a knowledge of Socionics, you'd apply them specifically to relationships of course)

[Jarno]

Super-id is anima/animus as related to Jung and not Freud.

I've not read anything that points to that. I think augusta just reasoned, ego has a superego, than id has a superid.

[mu4]

I've not read anything that points to that. I think augusta just reasoned, ego has a superego, than id has a superid.

Freud already seperated the unconscious into Eros and Thanatos.

Jung had Anima/Animus and Shadow which are also unconscious aspects of a person.

How the Anima/Animus is described as is basically dual-seeking but Jung associated this with the masculine and feminine. What Aushra did is clarified the terminology into a more systematic model.

Separating the unconscious into two aspects is not anything new, it just wasn't done in a systematic fashion as Aushra did nor incorporated into the model in a logical fashion.

Aushra's super-id is quite different from the ideas of Eros/Thanatos, Anima and Animus, but what it does concern is love.

Read the "dual nature of man" by Aushra, one of the threads that tie the whole of that article is love.

She starts the article with "Where the cause of erotic love?"

This is the auto translation.

Aushra was very knowledgeable about Jung and Freud, any suggestion that she missed these parts of their understanding of psychology is improbable.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Airman]

Very interesting views. According to Wikipedia, Aushra meant that:

Ego and Id: functions you use easily
Super-Ego and Super-Id: functions you do not use easily.

Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Airman]

I would like to point to the fact that, if seen from that perspective, than for example an ESTJ uses Se and Ti easily, which explains very well the sort of thing people do not like in ESTJs, which is a combination of Te+Se+Ti, which gives them an outwardly appearance of too much demanding of others.

This has a wide range of implications, as I was thinking last night, seeing the 16 types with their blocks, that in actuality, when I type someone, that person might be showing not only functions 1,2 and 3, but ALSO AND MORE PROBABLY THAN FUNCTION 3, FUNCTIONS 7 AND 8, which is quite a revolution.

An ESTJ may be manifesting Se with lots of ease and be mistaken for an Se Ego, to put an example. An ESFP may be manifesting Si and thus be confused for an ISTP. This is especially true if you type people quickly, like you meet them and in some hours you type them.

[Beautiful sky]

I would like to point to the fact that, if seen from that perspective, than for example an ESTJ uses Se and Ti easily, which explains very well the sort of thing people do not like in ESTJs, which is a combination of Te+Se+Ti, which gives them an outwardly appearance of too much demanding of others.

This has a wide range of implications, as I was thinking last night, seeing the 16 types with their blocks, that in actuality, when I type someone, that person might be showing not only functions 1,2 and 3, but ALSO AND MORE PROBABLY THAN FUNCTION 3, FUNCTIONS 7 AND 8, which is quite a revolution.

An ESTJ may be manifesting Se with lots of ease and be mistaken for an Se Ego, to put an example. An ESFP may be manifesting Si and thus be confused for an ISTP. This is especially true if you type people quickly, like you meet them and in some hours you type them.

One way ESTj don't use Se is that they don't point out obvious physical things about a person, like me, which might make me feel bad about myself. Se stuff like "You're hair is this or that" or "you look like a grandma" (refering to my conservative dress style); instead they make nice comments like "you look nice" and "you are fluffy". Makes me feel good.

[Azeroffs]

One way ESTj don't use Se is that they don't point out obvious physical things about a person, like me, which might make me feel bad about myself. Se stuff like "You're hair is this or that" or "you look like a grandma" (refering to my conservative dress style); instead they make nice comments like "you look nice" and "you are fluffy". Makes me feel good.

Yeah Se-egos never make nice comments and always like to point out how bad people look.

[Creepy-male]

Yeah Se-egos never make nice comments and always like to point out how bad people look.

Just like its a very typical compliment for Si's to say "you look fluffy today"... "did you recently get done fluffing yourself".....

[idontgiveaf]

Oh does it exist

What happened to all the high quality posters in this forum?

[Muddy]

What happened to all the high quality posters in this forum?

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if some of these ancient posters are even alive IRL anymore. There is stuff here dating all the way back to 2005 which is plenty long ago for some posters to of kicked the bucket since then. Thing is can no one know if a poster has died since they aren't around anymore to tell anyone that. Just imagine how weird the internet will be in 50+ years when its filled with post from dead people.

[photon]

I thought SoSS explains it well. Understanding the blocks makes so much more sense when you realise how they are developed : http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/d...vichkov/blocks

Super id and Id blocks are vital track, block of automatic and unrealised activity (developed during childhood)
Super ego and Ego blocks are mental track, the block of social life and creative activity, well thought information processing (super ego develops during adolescence, from about the age of 14. Ego develops during your 20s). You use the functions of this block when thinking on behalf of society rather than just your own individual activity.

Azeroffs actually explained the blocks pretty well. There are terms associated with each block that summarize them; Super id "I want", Id "I can", Super ego "I must"