Talk:Id, ego, and super-ego

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 19, 2006.
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
This article may be too technical for a general audience.
Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.

Contents

[edit] What WAS that first bit?? Completely Unreadable

Wow. with all the discussion here i thought somebody might have stumbled on the fact that the first paragraph is a lot of unintelligible jibberish that doesn't parse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.11.56 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 absolutely!  Thanks!  It infuriated me!  I've deleted it.
 Why Karl Popper's views should head the article is unintelligible.  Balance please!?
 
 LookingGlass 18:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 
 OK, I relented and just moved it to the bottom of the article.
 Seems appropriate that the statement should precede the rebuttal?
 Having said that, there should really be some sort of balance to Popper's views.
 Something by Emmanuel Kant might serve?
 
 LookingGlass 18:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jung

Clicking on 'Jung' in the section about Jung Wah Hong leads to the Carl Jung entry. Are they the same person? jung is stupid

[edit] Missing id section

There is a section for ego and superego, but id itself is never defined in much detail. To balance out the coverage of this psychological motif, I think id needs a section all to itself, too. The ID section was present in previous versions, but was first shortened, then removed entirely. Somehow later modifications did not include it again.

[edit] Scope

This article consists of a text from the Freud article, merged with the tiny stubby articles for ego, superego and id. I think it works better as a single article about all three. The article also refers to Freud and psychoanalysis, leading the reader to those topics. I have mentioned Transactional Analysis because the Parent/Adult/Child model is quite similar, and deserves comparison. --Anon

Looks good -- also makes a lot of sense to talk about all three in one article. Although, if and when a particular topic does get on the longish side, then this article can be a place where each of these terms are summarized and ego, id and maybe even superego could be places where these things are discussed in detail. --maveric149

I liked how this article tried to keep things simple. However, I also would have liked if each of the three were explained in more detail.

Redsupremacy says:

I think this is a highly effective edit. I was going to add the iceberg image but someone beat me too it. I disagree that there should be seperate more detailed information on the individal aspects as otherwise you will get lost in detail.

[edit] Combination of id, ego, superego and ego psychology articles

I am not sure this was a very good idea. Atlhough ego psychology is a school of psychoanalysis that originated in Freud's id-ego-superego model, I think it is confusing to have the ego psychology article stuffed into the id, ego, superego article. Ego psychology is a school of thought, and the id-ego-superego is a specific model.

I agree fully with this. The "ego, superego and id" could be discussed in an article called Structural theory of psychoanalysis. Ego psychology should be its own article. /skagedal... 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


I am moving ego psychology into it's own article, which will most likely be a stub. Lacan hated ego psychology, and Freud would've hated it for its 'feel-good' bullshit so it should be elsewhere. Plus, what the hell does it have to do with the structural/topographical model of the mind?--Jordangordanier 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theories of mind

This article would benefit from mention of alternate theories of the mind. - matturn 13:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. Freud was by no means the first person to use the term "ego" and this is hardly related in the article. Rudolf Steiner is one notable German to use the term much before Freud. osker 9 September 2006

[edit] Terminology

The word "Ego" is of Greek, not a Latin origin. "ΕΓΩ" (It is correctly mentioned here: Egocentric) -- Anon

That might be true but it is borrowed directly from the Latin. Ultimately, after all, it can be traced to PIE. —Casey J. Morris 21:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, Freud did not "coin" the German word "ich" for ego -- perhaps "apply" would be a better word choice. --brianhe

[edit] Id, ego, superego descriptions

I was taught in health class, and read in an analysis of Lord of the Flies, that the Ego is the social and moral codes, etc, and that the superego is the balance between Id and Ego. But this article states the opposite. Twilight Realm 22:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The ego evolves from the id and is responsible for organizing ways to fulfil the wants of the person in the real world (as opposed to the id's unreasoning demands for satisfaction). The superego component is the internalization of societal values (and just as unreasonable as the id in its demand to be obeyed.) It is the ego that compromizes between the id and the practical constraints of the real world. (HTH - I'm paraphrasing from a psychology textbook.) Al001 22:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

health class and lord of the flies... hmm not terribly scientific methods and anyway the id, ego, superego model is born from one aspect/approach the freudian and that there are other psychologists that mention or use the ego and it's also utilised in sociology which is less scientific in my mind than psychology


I have modified the 'Id' section to remove the words "as stated above." The entire purpose of the built-in shortcuts is that someone can jump directly to sections within an article without having to read the entire page. Why force users to refer to other sections when they know what they are looking for?

Additionally, there is no reason to refer to 'above' sections regarding Id when this is the actual Id portion of the article. If Id is going to be explained anywhere, it should be explained here. phreyan 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization?

Are Id, Ego, and Superego capitalized or not? The article does both. Encarta encyclopedia doesn't capitalize them, and the book title in the first paragraph (possibly incorrect) doesn't capitalize them, but I've seen them capitalized elsewhere. Twilight Realm 22:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No, they're being used as common nouns so they shouldn't be capitalized.Al001 16:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Revert?

Why were the contributions from 209.129.49.65 reverted? You can see before and after here [1] If the edits were factually incorrect, that's okay, but they don't seem like it (I have no knowlege or experience in this field, so I may be wrong). Twilight Realm 09:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The edits were factually incorrect, in that whatever theory they refer to is not Freud's. --172.164.54.121 14:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

Just some thoughts:

I don't think this article can be complete without the inclusion of:

  • diagram(s) representing id, ego, superego
  • pleasure principle and the reality principle
  • Eros, libido / Thanatos
  • Oedipus / Electra complex
  • neo-Freudian theorists

I'm awaiting advice on the use of one image (WRT: copyright - nggh!) and depending on the outcome of that I'd also like to draw the "iceberg". Al001 22:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Two of three external links are broken. --brianhe

The link on Freud and his analysis of personalities is no longer existant. --Anon

[edit] Redundant

Someone vandalised the Id subarticle, writing "Freud was a pervert and was obsessed with theories about sex, just so ya know.". Just so you know.

nevermind, someone fixed it.

[edit] Influences?

Does anyone know who may have influenced Freud in his tripartite theory of the mind? I know that Plato also believed that the human soul was divided into 3 parts: appetite, spirit and reason? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.204.109 (talk • contribs) .

Interesting question; I'll have to look that one up. --DanielCD 23:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I know Jean Charcot was a mentor and collaborator to Freud. He was a french neurologist, and was deeply interested in why people could show physical symptoms with no underlying physical cause. Enter stage left: psychosomatic investigations, hysteria research, etc. JoeSmack Talk 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I also think three is an archtypal number: it's a basic + and - and resulting conflict (or whole encompassing the two, etc.). I'm wanting to look at this, just need the time...!@ --DanielCD 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
--The idea of a tripartite draws inspiration from and is influenced by Plato; rather than appetite, spirit and reason (the titles of these parts do not correlate well), there is the idea of three parts of the soul as rational, irrational, and mediating. The ego, super-ego, and the id are part of his structural model (versus his old topographical model composed of conscious, unconscious, preconscious - which align as well with rational, irrational, mediating)and align well with Plato's tripartite - rational=superego, irrational=id, mediating=ego). Someone please correct me if I am getting the topographical model mixed up. Also, it is worth to note the connection to Nietzsche, whose ideas of the Dionysian and Apollonian are of irrational and rational structure as well. Jordangordanier 02:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pronunciation

how does one pronounce id? is it ID such as with "it" ionly with a "d", or is it pronounced like "Ide"?


--it is ID as 'it' is, only with a 'd' Jordangordanier 02:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {Primarysources} tag

JA: The {primarysources} tag does not make much sense to me here. It says:

This article does not cite sources or references that appear in a credible publication and are not primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations.

JA: The subject of the article is "Ego, Superego, and Id", so it does not make sense to ask for publications not affiliated with the subject of the article. Unless someone can explain and justify this tagging, I will soon delete it. The editor who placed it may wish to consider whether a {citeneeded} tag is more appropriate. Jon Awbrey 15:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I expect that the point the person who added the tag was trying to make it that the article could do with referancing some texts that criticaly examine these theories rather then just linking to texts that set out the theories.--JK the unwise 16:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ease of read

"tripartite divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory compartmentalizing the sphere of mental activity into three energetic components." ???. The introduction, which is supposed to provide an easy to understand overview was nearly inpenatrable. Its been a few years since I did my psycology A level but I have tryed to make the article clearer and added some more info from a breif bit of web searching. I'm wasn't quite sure about how to intergrate what are now the first and second prgh's they seem to set the article up to do differnt things.--JK the unwise 15:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critisisms

This article could really rather do with a section that covers critisms of the very idea that there are such things as the Ego, superego and id. I would imagine there are many (to put it lightly).--JK the unwise 16:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query: David Rapaport

JA: The current link for David Rapaport is redirected to the British actor David Rappaport, who I'm guessing is a different person. Can anybody supply a suitable link or bio? Thanks, Jon Awbrey 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What you mean like, how can anyone be sure that there is a subconsious if you're not aware of it. A large leap of faith as is required of other theories too.

[edit] Super-ego

I've beefed up the super-ego section a little. It is 'super-ego' not just superego, there is a hyphen. I've added information on its genesis, how it relates to much of Freud's work (such as the Oedipus complex and later works), I've mentioned the aggressiveness of the ego and its cause of guilt. I have also talked about the cultural super-ego which Freud talks about in his later works, and have mentioned a critique of super-ego formation in relation to females. Jordangordanier 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Jordangordanier


[edit] Inadequate Edit Lines

JA: Please do not use inadequate edit lines. Deleting a large section of text with the edit line "Still trying to corect grammer" [sic] might strain the assumption of good faith if it should chance to be repeated. Gratia in futuro, Jon Awbrey 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super-ego

I realize this is going to seem like a defense of my writing. However, first, just wondering why the super-ego section was edited down to such an extreme extent? While the ego and the id are still long sections, the super-ego is now under/disproportionately documented? Secondly, the standard edition of Freud's texts (edited and translated by James Strachey) all have a hyphenated super-ego. It's just a fact, it would be improper to have it without a hypen, we should not make this a matter of preference, just make it easy and go for the official spelling.

[edit] Working together

umm... does anyone have a better example?

[edit] See Also

I think I'm going to clean up/add some more significant people. There are big holes in this list, and a lot of trivial things that aren't necessarily connected to psychoanalysis.

[edit] Introduction

The introduction is wrong. Although ego psychologists may draw from "Ego and the Id" (1923) predominantly (I don't even know if this is true), the first release of the structural model of the mind was in his essay "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" (1920). Here is the quote from Peter Gay, a biographer, and editor of 'The Freud Reader', this is from his introduction to the essay "Beyond the Pleasure Principle: "The essay is a difficult text, but as the first statement of the new 'structural' theory of the mind, it is indispensable to an understanding of fundamental shifts in psychoanalytic thinking" (Gay, pp. 594, "The Freud Reader").

[edit] Anonymous criticism

JA: Please try to make your edits and your criticism more specific and more constructive. I doubt if anyone can figure out what you are trying to say about what. Jon Awbrey 20:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: To Anonymous User at 62.20.222.169: Please use edit lines to explain your edits. If you intend more radical modifications and/or have more substantial criticisms of the current article, it would be appreciated if you could articulate them on the discussion page, and discuss them with other editors who take an interest in this article. If there is a specific earlier version of the article that you think had superior features, you can use the article history to copy it to the talk page for further consideration, or ask, and someone will be glad to help you do that. Thanks, Jon Awbrey 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-Edit

I made lots of small edits:

  • Some typos and missing words ("Sigmind", heh heh)
  • "the first traces of the theory remain in his essay"—"remain" doesn't make sense for something earlier, changed to "appear"
  • I assume Project is "Project for a Scientific Psychology", which was an essay, not a book
  • Added ISBNs
  • Made book titles consistent (italics), plus the Freud titles don't really have ampersands, they have "and"
  • Made quotes and capitalization of section headings consistent

johndburger 01:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect from Ego

Inspired by [[User::Lapaz]]'s comments about ego redirecting here, I changed ego to redirect to 'EGO, and added the Freud concept to that disambiguation page; it's already on the ID page. I don't know if EGO should be added to the Template:3CC category - I don't quite get which three-letter combos are in that class and which aren't. —johndburger 01:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that idea was ill conceived JayKeaton 17:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Which, changing the redirect? Do you think the Freuudian sense of the term is overwhelmingly the strongest? If so, do you feel the same way about id? (BTW, I'm already engaged in disambiguating some of the pointers to ego, but that should happen anyway.) —johndburger 17:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Super Ego was abstractly altered in the website to common predicate

Freud's subconcious was termed the Superego as the cause of the effects lists. Freud was a classical writer and reading is difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.205 (talk)

[edit] Confusing?

Does this article really need the block at the top saying how it is confusing for readers? It was no more confusing than any other phsycology articles, and could be easily understood by anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of the science. 76.23.159.78 04:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Anon


I amhavingmy PSYCO1 class this semester. and one of the topics includes personality which brought me here with the id,ego,superego stuff. I also visited ALLPSYCH ONLINE. it all gets me confused here in this section. 210.213.122.91 03:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)kuting1230

[edit] Discussion of ego strength?

This article should be expanded.

[edit] Latin descriptions

id is actually a demonstrative pronoun, not a personal one, so the information will be edited accordingly.

[edit] Logic in Order of : Ego, Super Ego, ID

I think that order in the article should be modified.

Right now the order is: Ego, Super Ego, ID It's more difficult to understand Ego as balance between ID and Super Ego, if you don't have understanding of ID and Super Ego.


I believe that logical order should be: ID, Super Ego, Ego.

1. ID - Pleasure Principle (Basic Instinct) 2. Super Ego - Police Officer (Father Figure) 3. Ego - Balance between pleasure and what's right.

Hal1338 May 21st, 2007 3:50 AM (PDT)

[edit] Alternative theories?

I hear a lot of people say that Freud was full of crap. Not that his work is utterly useless, but I get the impression that other theories have arisen in the last 80 years which a lot of psychologists prefer. So maybe there should be a very brief section mentioning theories in opposition to those described in this article. I don't even know what those theories might be, as I don't study psychology. But if some people believe that Freud was not completely correct about this, then I think alternative views should at least be mentioned. (User:VidTheKid, not logged in) 69.95.30.155 22:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ciara Bronson Freud

Is there such a person? Google is only giving Wikipedia clones as targets. Perhaps the reference to this name a result of vandalism? --Malcohol 11:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation error

"Id, ego, and superego are the three components of the human mind in the psychoanalytic model.introduced by Sigmund Freud in the early 20th century."

Between the words model and introduced, someone accidentally placed a period. I am going to remove it.--71.135.180.9 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision Needed

This page badly needs to be revised by someone who is verbally intellectual. There are many, many little messed up portions of this article that makes it look like it was written by an ignorant bafoon. Not only is this article of particular importance just because it pertains to Freud, but it is also particularly important because this is some of the most basic, yet vital, information pertaining to psychology/psychiatry. I know this because I took a General Psychology class in college, and this was the first thing we learned. I would fix the errors, but I am running on a fever of 102, and have been for about a month! Someone else do it, please. --71.135.188.32 (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete?

This article is in Category:Obsolete psychological theories, but the article does not explain why it is being called obsolete. Who is saying this? Is it widely held to be obsolete, or is there a current controversy? To what extent is it being considered obsolete? Every part and parcel of it, or only certain parts? If this is not explained within the article, then it is POV to have it in this category. --Icarus (Hi!) 10:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-Ego...

Somebody had changed all of the "super"s in the text to "spider," instructed to by a video on YouTube by the account-holder "Nerimon." Also noticed the word "Oedipus" replaced by "Octopus"... All changed back now. Abcmsaj (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)