Talk:Id, ego and superego/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

{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)

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.

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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

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)

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)

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)


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

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)

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)

Jung

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


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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tag

Since Freud is not widely believed by psychologists today, this article needs something like the fiction-in-universe tag.76.85.197.118 (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Article needs more references

The article needs some clean-up as far as the style guideline on footnotes, and needs more references. It's unclear where most of the text is coming from or if it's accurate and verifiable. David Starr 1 (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

modern ego

self obsessed reality show wannabies. Sick, sad. victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.2.0 (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Theory's influence, and modern prevalence?

How was Freud's theory of id, ego, and super-ego received by the contemporary psychological community? How did it effect the writings of later psychologists? Is it widely accepted or dismissed in modern psychology? I know similar questions have been raised in this discussion page already, but it doesn't seem anyone's added such references and information to the article. Would anyone with the knowledge please add this info? Without it, it's difficult to tell from the article alone how relevant Freud's theory was, and is today. KrisWood (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Ego in Buddhism

Shouldn't there be a hint of that meaning, too? [2] see section The Five Skandhas.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.193.107 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

External links

Two of three external links are broken. --brianhe

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

There is no link to this page (or mention of psychology at all) on the "ID" disambiguation page. 97.115.62.3 (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference and Notes list

The references and notes need combining into one, an example is the Snowdon references. They are linked as notes but the reference is incomplete, with the actual reference in the "references" section. Surely the notes and references section should be as one? CapFan (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.11.190 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I combined the Snowden citations into one, but don't have the time to finish cleaning up the rest. I did not touch the "References" section either. KrisWood (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok so I decided to take the time to do it after all. The notes section has been merged into the references section. All references except those directly from Freud (which may be better off with inline citations?) have been normalized into a more wiki-friendly citation format. It really does make things a bit easier to tie together! KrisWood (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Iceberg diagram

Would it be a good idea to include the icberg diagram as an image for the article, even at the heading? The image I'm talking about is this, which is included in the defense mechanisms article. I think it is a good idea to have this image here, but anyway I am far from having enough knowledge in these topics. For those who know about psychoanalysis, is it ok to have the iceberg here? Thanks! Alfredo (T.a.lk) 21:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think that's an altogether useful diagram. Along with far too much in this and similar articles, it doesn't stem directly from Freud; and it also fails to represent the preconscious sensibly (Freud's 'searchlight' analogy is better in that regard). It's good to see the unconscious (by definition) nature of the Id represented, and also the partly conscious, partly unconscious aspects of the Ego and Super-ego; but on the whole the diagram isn't quite up to the job, IMHO. Quite apart from the question of what role the Sun is supposed to be playing there...! HTH Pfistermeister (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Freud says that the super-ego is "father from consciousness than the ego" in The Ego and The Id. This does not match up to the diagram--143.210.122.144 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What are these

"they do not exist. The are labels, hypothetical constructs. Ideally they should only be used as adjectives. This is a superego wish. This is an id wish". Should be included. Are they only descriptors of "wishes"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.166.40 (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ego

Editors here might be interested in this discussion: Talk:Ego#Redirect is better. Westbender (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Single-issue nut-jobs

For some reason, this page is attracting nutters -- one of whom comes back over and over again trying to impose American spelling not merely on an entry written without it, but also upon *actual quotations from British books that use English spelling*. This is not acceptable, and will not be permitted.

Equally, it is not acceptable for the other nutcase to keep trying to replace the psychoanalysts' carefully chosen word 'unpleasure' (frequently unconscious and often somatic and usually without any moralising or judgemental aspect) with the inadequate everyday and gentrifying literary word 'displeasure'. For the sake of ending this ignorant, vandalistic campaign as soon as possible, let me explain patiently that 'displeasure' is *connotatively different from* and *denotatively narrower than* 'unpleasure' -- which is why psychoanalysis chose 'unpleasure' and the text-books continue to use it. 'Displeasure' is a stupid and misleading word to use in this context. Keep your stupid and clueless hands off. Pfistermeister (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Equally, it is not acceptable for you to attack other editors. Stop with the name-calling, etc. Westbender (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"Nutters" indicates an ignoramus or uneducated person and evinces conservative personality disorder in its overreaction to a trivial matter of regional spelling differences. If this the issue and the basis of the remaining tag it should be removed. I especially like the image from Forbidden Planet. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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) Its all nonsense. However the fact is, some aspects of science have become like religion and the believers of those aspects will fight tooth and nail to keep those aspects as 'science' when they are really pseudoscience. Occoms Razor is another example. Treated like a 'law of nature' when it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The criticism is, in my experience, frequently made that 'there is no evidence for the existence of the ego, superego, and id - Freud's structural theory is therefore nothing other than a mythology'. (For example, Louis Wolpert made this criticism in his contribution to this (2012) year's Maudsley Debate on psychoanalysis in the UK's public health service. JK the unwise also makes this point above.) I thought of adding a section on this criticism, but I suspect that it is itself too philosophically ill-informed to be worth the bother. For example, it seems pretty obvious to me (but what about to others?) that these concepts of ego, id etc. are intended as constructs rather than as names for physical entities. I'm no philosophical expert on this, but it also seems pretty obvious to me that constructs don't possess meaning in virtue of successful acts of reference to entities. Thus I am no more sure what to do with a question about a putative lack of evidence for the existence of the id than I am to do with a question about a putative lack of evidence for the existence of intelligence or confidence. (What would you say to someone who said: 'Before I am prepared to say that Geoffrey is a smart fellow, I first want to know what evidence is there that smartness even exists'? I guess you'd have to explain that the noun is here a derivative of rather than a source for the adjective.) The point is even more obvious if we look at Freud's German (the Ich etc.), or if we follow Bettelheim in replacing the terms with it, I or me, and over-I. (Imagine: 'But what evidence is there that the I even exists?'...) Perhaps what is best is if we remind ourselves not to get caught up in a reification of the terms, by (for example) avoiding the unhelpful 'the' which gets put in front of them. In this way we can start to use them like 'happiness' where it doesn't occur to us to get into a muddle and start wondering about the reality of 'the happiness'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.29.50 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment

this whole article is out of date and focuses on misleading uneducated people. you might as well say we live in a clockwork universe. eg. if you've read about INTRINSICISM then how can this be fact. The super-ego controls our sense of right and wrong and guilt. heres another subsitute meaning. an ego thus educated has become ‘reasonable’; it no longer lets itself be governed by the pleasure principle, but obeys the reality principle, which also, at bottom, seeks to obtain pleasure, but pleasure which is assured through taking account of reality, even though it is pleasure postponed and diminished”. Reality should be taken out of this sentence because its changing the real meaning of reality. there are many alternate realities which could be used but theres also one true reality proven and defined people whether they have egos or not don't live to the rules of reality i now of if any thing we try to create false ones. real reality is defined from the envirment and majoritie of the population live in cities desined to keep the block out the true reality to make false ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.8.238 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable appearances in popular culture

Let's discuss the appropriateness of this section here rather than edit warring over it. Doniago (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC) 

   Lord of the flies is one  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.12.166 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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) The theory may be added to with the Alter ego being where the persona resides when out of contact with reality a theory developed by Randall Morton in 2012 June 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.119.250 (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Eros Link

The current Eros link goes to the Greek God, not the article for the psychological meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.97.185.206 (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Fixed, but in the future you can go ahead and fix things like that yourself. Anybody can edit Wikipedia, after all. Novusuna talk 03:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No criticism section?

This article should have a 'criticism' section, since obviously the actual existence of the id, ego and super-ego, and the supposed relations between them, is contentious. I doubt many clinical psychologists believe they exist. And is there any actual scientific evidence for any of this? (Though there is quite a bit of evidence that Sigmund Fraud was a charlatan who made up his supposed clinical results. Or does that not matter?) 149.241.213.58 (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The lack of any context whatever for these hypotheses is conspicuous and suspicious. A neutral account of the veracity of these ideas is desperately needed, to prevent this article looking like it is stating uncontentious fact.--109.149.187.194 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Somatic structures"...

The intro contains this statement:

"Even though the model is structural and makes reference to an apparatus, the id, ego and super-ego are functions of the mind rather than parts of the brain and do not correspond one-to-one with actual somatic structures of the kind dealt with by neuroscience."

I interpret this to either mean that the theory is scientifically accepted but not an anatomical one, which is not true, or that the theory explicitly rules out the idea that it is borne out anatomically, which is very dubious - I'm sure plenty Freudians expected to find a one-to-one correspondence of some sort. Pending a rewrite I shall remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.187.194 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It means there is no part of the brain where the id, ego or superego resides in particular. Usually the article explains the lede. I put the paragraph back pending further comment, if necessary. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Quote

  • "the first traces of the theory remain in his essay"—"remain" doesn't make sense for something earlier, changed to "appear"

The irony of that statement is overwhelming. Anyway, the word "remain" refers to the fact that the papers that are accepted as authentic have not been edited and so remain in the text. But, you have prevented that from remaining and made your edit appear. This is your ego's thought processes being revealed to all. LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.250.4.238 (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

/* Id */ deleted this distraction which introduces someone not relevant: paraphrasing a quip made by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan during his

Reagan should not be here and it's doubtful he invented this allusion. psw808@zoho.com... cannot remember my login. this entry may be redundant; haven't done this for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.212.33 (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

the problem of pollution... m anupam mallick mk frm chamorshi

hi my self anupam mallick mk m talking about the pollution 

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light. Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupam maallick (talk • contribs) 06:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

super-ego

We've got this sentence:

The superego and the ego is the product of two key factors: the state of helplessness of the child and the Oedipus complex. [1]

It's ungrammatical, so I was about to change is to are, but in context, perhaps the more appropriate fix is "The superego is the product of two key factors". —Steve Summit (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The superego reference 33 mentions (towards the end of the section) that fact that Freud didn't find the ethics of the cultural standards passed down by the parents as necessarily part of the psychological make-up of the individual. That the superego and the id are competing for the attentions of the ego is established, yet it is the psychological component where there is some discrepancy. Could we not mention the sectioning of the superego to counter this absence of psychological component? What is the society at large exactly if not a conceptual fabrication in our minds? The society at large contains the peer group, the celebrities of late, the institutions we have been part of, the knowledge epistemology we derive most of our opinions from. The respected members of each formulate our societal interaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.157.62 (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

merge with psychic apparatus

No point in having 2 separate articles describing the same concept, especially when one is just a stub. Oicumayberight (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree completely. These are two different but related topics. [User: hhhodes@yahoo.com 02 March 2017] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.203.237 (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Psychic apparatus.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Where's the criticism section?

This article sorely needs some context and criticism. 89.146.140.140 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur. Plus developments: scientific validity (if any) etc. Zezen (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Writing style

I'm struggling with numerous issues in the style of writing. I just wanted a simple understanding of id, ego, and super-ego, but what I found was a lengthy, self-contradicting, repetitive, pompously written, and highly over-quoted article, written largely by the translators of Freud. We don't need to state facts in such a convoluted way, and then re-state the same facts in quotations of Freud's even more convoluted words. I think I got it though. Id = basic drives and instincts, superego = learned conscience, morality, and social norms, ego = reason, reconciling id with superego, and cognitive functions. Can we have something simple, maybe on that level, in the lead instead of these lengthy quotes by Freud? They shouldn't be in the lead anyway. These concepts themselves aren't as complex as this article is. Dcs002 (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

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.

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.

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)

Working together

Some Observations On The Uses Of The Transcendental Meditation Program In Psycidatry

https://www.mum.edu/assets/collected_papers/bloo1975s1coll1-95.pdf

See Also

https://www.mum.edu/assets/collected_papers/

Latin descriptions

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

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)

Article Description

Please change "Psychologist concepts by Sigmund Fread" to "Psychology concept by Sigmund Freud", thank you. :)

(I don't know how to edit things here, sowwy~) ゆみい (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Sédat, Jacques (2000). "Freud". Collection Synthèse. volume 109. Armand Colin. ISBN 9782200219970, 1590510062. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Id,_ego_and_superego/Archive_1"