kmgopinathan@violet.waterloo.edu (Krishna Gopinathan) (04/02/88)
I've heard the terms superego, ego, and id mentioned a lot but I
haven't really seen a clear definition of them. Can anyone out there
in netland explain them?
In Management textbooks discussing Transactional Analysis, they mention
three states of the human psyche called Parent, Adult, and Child. Is
there any parallel between these and superego, ego, and id? And lastly
do the stages of development, oral/anal/genital, have any correlation
with these concepts? If so, how?
I apologize if these are trivial questions.
/ / /
/ / o /
/ / /
/ < )---, , / | / --.
/ | / / / / | / /
_/ \/ /__/ __/___'_/ /_
Krishna Gopinathan kmgopina@water.bitnet
Dept. of Computer Science kmgopinathan@violet.waterloo.edu
University of Waterloo kmgopinathan@violet.waterloo.netnorth
Waterloo, Ontario {uunet,utzoo,ubc-vision}!watmath!violet!kmgopinathanjsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) (04/04/88)
In article <6171@watdragon.waterloo.edu> kmgopinathan@violet.waterloo.edu (Krishna Gopinathan) writes:
)I've heard the terms superego, ego, and id mentioned a lot but I
)haven't really seen a clear definition of them. Can anyone out there
)in netland explain them?
For an easy-to-read explanation of these and other Freudian terms, I recommend
you read Brenner's "Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis"
For the Transactional Analysis terms you can't do worse than read Eric Berne's
writings. (He's fun to read too!)
--
286,000 miles per second. It's not just a good idea, it's the law!
jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)sarima@gryphon.CTS.COM (Stan Friesen) (04/04/88)
In article <6171@watdragon.waterloo.edu> kmgopinathan@violet.waterloo.edu (Krishna Gopinathan) writes: >I've heard the terms superego, ego, and id mentioned a lot but I >haven't really seen a clear definition of them. Can anyone out there >in netland explain them? > >In Management textbooks discussing Transactional Analysis, they mention >three states of the human psyche called Parent, Adult, and Child. Is >there any parallel between these and superego, ego, and id? Well, I don't really *know*, but I have gotten a certain general impression from my rather sparse reading on the subject. So here are my guesses. The id appears to be that part of a persons psyche that is purely emotional, it "knows" only reactions, not reasons or ideas. It is "wild" and "untamed". The ego, in my impression, is the rational part of ones psyche, it is the thinking, logical self. It is the source os ideas and reasoning. The superego is that part that is usually called the conscience, that is it is the critical, or at least judgemental, self. Is anyone out there more familiar with Freudian analysis? And there is a close parallel between the three Freudian terms and the more modern terms Parent, Adult, and Child. I believe the switch in terminology was in part due to the growing realization that the Freudian concepts were too simplistic and a more flexible model was needed. Thus while it is true that Parent is approximately Superego, Adult approximately Ego and Child approximately Id, the new terms cover a broader range of reactions than the older ones. They are also more easily understood by the layman!!
decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) (04/05/88)
This doesn't really answer your question, but here's some related terminology from another school of mental science called Dianetics, developed by L. Ron Hubbard. The kinds of behavior caused by the "id" and "superego" would be classified as two varieties of subconscious "circuits" of the "reactive mind", which as its name indicates, operates on a simple, associative, reactive basis without involving the analytical mind. The only distinction between these two facilities of the reactive mind is that the "id" part records bodily sensations and offers them up for reperception later under similar circumstances, and the "superego" part is responsible for storing verbal judgements and ways to determine that others are wrong and oneself is right. This only appears to be useful information in that it helped somebody win when it was originally experienced, but since it does not involve the analytical mind, it usually results in aberrative behavior. Thus, you don't need your id or superego for anything in particular. Anything good about your behavior comes from your analytical mind (aka your "ego"). Dave Decot hpda!decot
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (04/06/88)
In article <6171@watdragon.waterloo.edu> kmgopinathan@violet.waterloo.edu (Krishna Gopinathan) writes: >I've heard the terms superego, ego, and id mentioned a lot but I >haven't really seen a clear definition of them. Can anyone out there >in netland explain them? > >In Management textbooks discussing Transactional Analysis, they mention >three states of the human psyche called Parent, Adult, and Child. Is >there any parallel between these and superego, ego, and id? And lastly >do the stages of development, oral/anal/genital, have any correlation >with these concepts? If so, how? Superego, Ego and Id are terms from Freudian psychology, as are oral/anal/genital (which are really oral/anal/latent/phallic/genital). It should first be stated that, while Freud is still highly respected as a brilliant man and acknowledged as one of the greats of the field, his theories have been pretty much discredited these days. That said: The superego is what is commonly referred to as your conscience. It's the internalization of all the rules laid down by your parents and society -- essentially, everything you had to do to be loved and not punished. The id is the unconscious part of the mind. It has neither conscience nor rationality and is completely childish and selfish. The ego is the self, literally "I", your couscious sense of being and on-going rational thought. It's the ego's job to mediate between the strict, unreasoning (sometimes irrational) rules of the superego and the selfish demands of the id. In Transactional Analysis, the Parent, Adult and Child roughly correspond to the Superego, Ego and Id, respectively. However, the two systems are sufficiently disparate that the correspondence isn't very useful. The Freudian stages of development refer to those parts of the body which are, supposedly, the center of sexual pleasure as the organism matures. Oral, the first, refers to the child's need to suck at the breast. Anal refers to the adventures of toilet training. Latent refers to a period when Freud couldn't find much going on (-: . Phallic refers to the sexual fascination of puberty. Genital refers to the maturity of adulthood. Freudian analysts interpret neurotic behaviors as the result of an adult being "stuck" at one of the earlier stages of development. (E.g.: Misers are anal-retentives. Spend-thrifts are anal-expulsives. Gluttons are oral types. Etc.) I think that sums it up in a nutshell. I'm sure others will be happy to flame me if I'm far off the mark. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombe
jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) (04/06/88)
In article <3118@gryphon.CTS.COM> sarima@gryphon.CTS.COM (Stan Friesen) writes: )In article <6171@watdragon.waterloo.edu> kmgopinathan@violet.waterloo.edu (Krishna Gopinathan) writes: )>I've heard the terms superego, ego, and id mentioned a lot but I )>haven't really seen a clear definition of them. Can anyone out there )>in netland explain them? )> )>In Management textbooks discussing Transactional Analysis, they mention )>three states of the human psyche called Parent, Adult, and Child. Is )>there any parallel between these and superego, ego, and id? ) ) Well, I don't really *know*, but I have gotten a certain general )impression from my rather sparse reading on the subject. So here are my )guesses. The id appears to be that part of a persons psyche that is purely )emotional, it "knows" only reactions, not reasons or ideas. It is "wild" )and "untamed". The ego, in my impression, is the rational part of ones )psyche, it is the thinking, logical self. It is the source os ideas and )reasoning. The superego is that part that is usually called the conscience, )that is it is the critical, or at least judgemental, self. Is anyone out )there more familiar with Freudian analysis? Yes. The 3 terms are intra-psychic terms and refer to a general theory of personality developement. One is born all Id (the Latin word for "it" as "ego" is for "I". In early translations of Freud I have seen the terms I and it used instead of the jargon-sounding Latin terms), developes an ego from trying to get some pleasure out of the world. Later one developes a superego through identfication with the same sex parent in resolving the Oedipus complex. There is a large amount of associated theory that makes use of these concepts (which are not very useful outside this theoretical framework). ) And there is a close parallel between the three Freudian terms and )the more modern terms Parent, Adult, and Child. I believe the switch in )terminology was in part due to the growing realization that the Freudian )concepts were too simplistic and a more flexible model was needed. Thus The Transactional Analysis terms are inter-psychic rather than intra-psychic. That is, they refer to "ego states" assumed by a participant in an interaction with another human being. They are *not* more modern but refer to a different theory base with different forms of treatment. As far as I know, Eric Berne (who created T.A.) comes out of the Freudian tradition and probably accepts something like the Freudian theory of personality developement. -- 286,000 miles per second. It's not just a good idea, it's the law! jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (04/06/88)
In article <766@actnyc.UUCP> jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes:
.For the Transactional Analysis terms you can't do worse than read Eric Berne's
.writings. ...
I'm afraid I have to agree with this. (Sorry, couldn't resist). (-:{
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombegcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/06/88)
In article <769@actnyc.UUCP> jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes: > ... As far as I know, Eric Berne >(who created T.A.) comes out of the Freudian tradition and probably accepts >something like the Freudian theory of personality developement. In one of his books Berne explicitly claims that his theory is a mapping of Freudian theory, although he doesn't use that word.
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/07/88)
In article <14830004@hpisod2.HP.COM> decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes: } This doesn't really answer your question, but here's some related } terminology from another school of mental science called Dianetics, } developed by L. Ron Hubbard. } } The kinds of behavior caused by the "id" and "superego" would be classified } as two varieties of subconscious "circuits" of the "reactive mind", which } as its name indicates, operates on a simple, associative, reactive basis } without involving the analytical mind. } } The only distinction between these two facilities of the reactive mind } is that the "id" part records bodily sensations and offers them up for } reperception later under similar circumstances, and the "superego" part } is responsible for storing verbal judgements and ways to determine that } others are wrong and oneself is right. This only appears to be } useful information in that it helped somebody win when it was originally } experienced, but since it does not involve the analytical mind, it } usually results in aberrative behavior. A huge amount of human behavior is socially learned and not subsequently analyzed -- for example, the use of language on the part of most people. An individual who tried to analyze the totality of his behavior would not have time to actually do anything. In any case, such behavior can't be called aberrative if the roots of the word mean anything -- wandering away (from an accepted norm.) Unanalyzed behavior _is_ the norm. } Thus, you don't need your id or superego for anything in particular. Then you wouldn't have them. Evolutionary pressures quickly get rid of characteristics which waste large amounts of energy. } Anything good about your behavior comes from your analytical mind } (aka your "ego"). I don't see how anything can be called good on the basis of pure analysis. Some kind of primordial sense of good or benefit would have to come first. Some kinds of supposedly good behavior derive from: desire for survival of self, desire for survival of the group, love/altruism, religious belief, "art". How would you produce these by means of analysis? What are your primitives, your axioms?
decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) (04/08/88)
> } The only distinction between these two facilities of the reactive mind > } is that the "id" part records bodily sensations and offers them up for > } reperception later under similar circumstances, and the "superego" part > } is responsible for storing verbal judgements and ways to determine that > } others are wrong and oneself is right. This only appears to be > } useful information in that it helped somebody win when it was originally > } experienced, but since it does not involve the analytical mind, it > } usually results in aberrative behavior. > > A huge amount of human behavior is socially learned and not subsequently > analyzed -- for example, the use of language on the part of most people. I'm sorry to be unclear. When I say "analyzed", I mean, roughly, "perceived, compared to past experiences, and recorded in a fashion accessible to later analyzing". The theory is that the reactive mind records perceptions only when the analytical mind is totally or partially inactive. When a person is fully conscious, all of the perceptions are recorded by the "ego", or analytical mind, and are fully available to it later. But "facts" received when a person was partially unconscious or in great pain (such as "You never do what I say") would be called forth later under similar circumstances and result in decisions without the person's conscious knowlege. "You never do what I say" heard when a person is fully alert in a social situation would be understood to be simply a critical comment, and not taken literally. Your analytical mind is not something you have to consciously "think" with, it simply performs logical tasks on data accessible to it. You cause your mind to perform the tasks desired, but the "default" task (recording and analyzing) is not something you have to "make" to happen, and that's certainly useful. > An individual who tried to analyze the totality of his behavior would > not have time to actually do anything. Yes. "Analyzing" in the sense I mean does not require "trying" or "thinking". I'm referring to the mind's automatic process of perceiving and recording perceptions and permitting the normal "background" analysis done by the mind to take place. This doesn't ordinarily involve conscious effort, but it does require the person to be awake, for instance. If you're in pain, that takes enough attention away from what's going on around you to cause it not to be perceived analytically. > } Thus, you don't need your id or superego for anything in particular. > > Then you wouldn't have them. Evolutionary pressures quickly get > rid of characteristics which waste large amounts of energy. They're vestiges, and even as such today they waste large amounts of energy. I'm sure you can think of illogical and irrational things done by persons that waste large amounts of energy. These persons are not dead, and lots of them will have children. > } Anything good about your behavior comes from your analytical mind > } (aka your "ego"). > > I don't see how anything can be called good on the basis of pure > analysis. Some kind of primordial sense of good or benefit would > have to come first. Some kinds of supposedly good behavior derive > from: desire for survival of self, desire for survival of the group, > love/altruism, religious belief, "art". How would you produce > these by means of analysis? What are your primitives, your axioms? I use the term "good" to mean "aiding in survival", of whatever, including one's body, his family, his groups, his race, his planet, the physical universe. Art and religious beliefs can be said to be "good" for a person when they help maintain his mental health, by improving his affinity, reality, communication, and understanding, all of which helps him survive. The opposite of this definition of "good" would be "causing pain and death". There was a time millions of years ago when the reactive mind was of use to us, when we had no real capacity to analyze and remember things abstractly. Simplistic automatic associations were enough to keep us alive then, but not today when there's more thinking beings around. Dave Decot hpda!decot
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/13/88)
In article <14830005@hpisod2.HP.COM> decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes: > .... The theory is that the reactive mind records perceptions >only when the analytical mind is totally or partially inactive. When a person >is fully conscious, all of the perceptions are recorded by the "ego", >or analytical mind, and are fully available to it later. I don't know about anyone else, but I cannot recall every perception that passed through my ego in the several decades of its existence. I have also experienced the recovery of information not consciously "recorded"; this is common under hypnosis but sometimes occurs spontaneously. It does not seem to me that there is a strict division between the conscious mind and the unconscious; a lot of material passes back and forth. >.... >Your analytical mind is not something you have to consciously "think" with, >it simply performs logical tasks on data accessible to it. You >cause your mind to perform the tasks desired, but the "default" >task (recording and analyzing) is not something you have to "make" >to happen, and that's certainly useful. Mostly what seems to happen is association and pattern-recognition, not logic. And often thoughts seem to spring out of nowhere, which I take means from some unconscious process, absent ESP or the like. > >...[about id and superego and whether they are necessary]... > >They're vestiges, and even as such today they waste large amounts of energy. >I'm sure you can think of illogical and irrational things done by >persons that waste large amounts of energy. These persons are not dead, >and lots of them will have children. > I don't know whether they waste energy or not. Unconscious processes must relieve us of what would otherwise be an enormous burden of cogitation, all the way from what temperature shall I keep my body at, to what shall I call a yellow car that picks up passengers. Most of them probably do a good job and therefore we're unaware of them -- just as we're unaware of most of our internal organs when they're OK. It may be that it's very difficult for an aggressive, intelligent being to figure out how to live with other aggressive, intelligent beings, and that what seems illogical and irrational to the casual observer is actually as good a strategy as can be devised given the circumstances. Until very recently in terms of evolution, human beings were subject to evolutionary pressures. Only a few hundred generations ago, a person who acted foolishly stood a good chance of dying promptly.
jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) (04/13/88)
Dave Decot writes:
)I use the term "good" to mean "aiding in survival", of whatever, including
)one's body, his family, his groups, his race, his planet, the physical
)universe. Art and religious beliefs can be said to be "good" for a person
)when they help maintain his mental health, by improving his affinity,
)reality, communication, and understanding, all of which helps him survive.
)The opposite of this definition of "good" would be "causing pain and death".
Survival of one's body, family, groups (newsgroups?), race, etc. may require
opposite actions thus one may have to give up ones body to save a member of
ones family. "Good" is a value word and thus cannot be derived solely from
facts (else someone with a competing value accepting your definition could
rightly say "why do what's good?".) Clearly you think survival is a good
thing. Are there any suicidal readers out there who wish to contest this?
What you post may double as a suicide note.
--
"Just say N2O"
jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) (04/14/88)
> Dave Decot writes: > )I use the term "good" to mean "aiding in survival", of whatever, including > )one's body, his family, his groups, his race, his planet, the physical > )universe. Art and religious beliefs can be said to be "good" for a person > )when they help maintain his mental health, by improving his affinity, > )reality, communication, and understanding, all of which helps him survive. > )The opposite of this definition of "good" would be "causing pain and death". > > Survival of one's body, family, groups (newsgroups?), race, etc. may require > opposite actions thus one may have to give up ones body to save a member of > ones family. Granted. One's personality determines which of these "dynamics" has priority over which others. "Good" is a value word and thus cannot be derived solely from > facts (else someone with a competing value accepting your definition could > rightly say "why do what's good?".) I was attempting to remove the subjective (or "value") nature from the word and nail it down a little better. I have no answer for the question. What's good for one dynamic can be bad for another. Why do what's good? Depends on whether you want the various dynamics to survive. It's perfectly imaginable to not want them to survive, although most such people are classified as "insane" by the society. > Clearly you think survival is a good thing. By my definition of "good" only. I do not mean to imply that I personally think anybody in particular "should" do anything in particular. Also, depending on one's personal weighting of the dynamics, survival of one's own body may not be the most "good". > Are there any suicidal readers out there who wish to contest this? Probably. If their suicide helps the society, or their family, or even their own spirit, it can be termed a "good" thing to do. Was Hitler's suicide "good"? Depends on who you are and what you want, probably. Dave
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/16/88)
[ Dave Decot: ] }> )I use the term "good" to mean "aiding in survival", of whatever... [ Invisible Man: ] }> Survival of one's body, family, groups (newsgroups?), race, etc. may require }> opposite actions thus one may have to give up ones body to save a member of }> ones family. [ Decot: ] }Granted. One's personality determines which of these "dynamics" has priority }over which others. [ I.M.: ] }>"Good" is a value word and thus cannot be derived solely from }> facts (else someone with a competing value accepting your definition could }> rightly say "why do what's good?".) [ Decot: ] }I was attempting to remove the subjective (or "value") nature from the word }and nail it down a little better. I have no answer for the question. }What's good for one dynamic can be bad for another. Why do what's good? }Depends on whether you want the various dynamics to survive. It's }perfectly imaginable to not want them to survive, although most such }people are classified as "insane" by the society. "Depends on whether you want..." It seems to me that, far from removing the subjective nature from the word "good" you have made it entirely subjective. I would suggest that it is subjective because its value derives from non-logical, non-analytical mental processes, e.g. emotion, intuition, conditioning. If the good could be determined through analysis, it would be merely a matter of using the right language to find it, and it would be "objective". Not everyone thinks survival is the ultimate good: allegedly, Buddhists believe the ultimate good is _nirvana_, Sanksrit for "blown out [like a candle]", i.e. annihilation. Can they prove it to you? I think this gets back to my original point about whether the superego and the unconscious are vital parts of one's mind or just vestigial excrescences.
chb@valideast.UUCP (Charlie Berg) (04/18/88)
In article <2232@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: > >In Transactional Analysis, the Parent, Adult and Child roughly correspond >to the Superego, Ego and Id, respectively. However, the two systems are >sufficiently disparate that the correspondence isn't very useful. > > >-- >The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil >Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum >3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 >Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombe Oops. Sorry. I didn't think your statement that the Parent, Adult, and Child corresponding to Id, Ego, and Superego rang true, so I went back and checked. My source is "Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy", by E. Berne (my edition is Grove Press 1961). I make 3 quotes from this: "It will be demonstrated that Parent, Adult, and Child are NOT [my emphasis] concepts like Ego, Id, and Superego, or Jungian constructs, but phenomenological realities..." (pg. 24) later, in defining "ego states" (Parent Adult, and Child)... "The term "ego state" is intended merely to denote states of mind and their related patterns of behavior as they occur in nature, and AVOIDS...USE OF CONSTRUCTS (again, my emphasis) such as ....'superego'....". (pg. 30) Finally, (on pg. 244) "Freud does not raise any question of systematic phenomonology, and it is here that structural analysis can usefully fill a gap in psychological theory, just as transactional analysis fills a gap in social theory..." I think that Berne's work was a behaviorist-like response to the criticisms against Freud's introspective techniques, i.e. "let's only deal with the observable". P.S. Any truth to the rumor that Berne developed his theory so he could be come famous and reject invitation to join the Northwestern U.S. branch of the A.P.A., after they initially rejected HIM for (supposedly) anti-semitic reasons? Charlie Berg Valid Logic Systems, PCB Division Chelmsford, MA. (617) 256-2300 {ulowell, linus, allegra, wjh12}!vaxine!valideast!chb