The decider is the ego

[coberst]

The decider is the ego

Humans appear to be the only species of animal that has placed self-consciousness, in the form of what is called the ego, between animal instincts and animal behavior. That is, the ego interrupts the flow of instinct directly into action. The ego, the decider, says HALT, HOLD IT, to the force of instinct. Human action does not immediately follow instinct because the ego absorbs the energy of instinct.

The ego is also a decider regarding all manner of things that might cause the creature to feel anxious. As the ego learns what causes anxiety it learns what inputs from both inside and outside the creature must be controlled. The ego becomes both the decider and the defender.

In its role as defender the ego utilizes the mechanisms of denial, repression, and partialization. The latter represents the highest price that the creature pays for this defense against anxiety. The process of partialization limits the experience that the ego allows the creature to enjoy.

“The ego, the unique “psychological organ” of the higher primates, develops by skewing perceptions and by limiting action.” Early in the infants life the “ego grows by a dispossession of the child’s own inner world. The mechanisms of defense are, after all, par excellence techniques of self-deception.”

We often lament that “I can’t make him change his mind.” Why is it virtually impossible to change another’s mind? Often it is because the ego will not allow it. The ego recognizes that to change the mind in this matter is to lead to anxiety and thus the ego will not permit it to happen.

THEY are not necessarily too stupid to change, just as WE are not necessarily too stupid to change. It may very well be that their ego and our ego will not permit the anxiety that will result from the change.

Perhaps this is one reason for such strong anti-intellectualism and negative bias against psychology in America. The ego controls such things so as to reduce a cause for anxiety in the individual.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this is one reason for such strong anti-intellectualism and negative bias against psychology in America. The ego controls such things so as to reduce a cause for anxiety in the individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

OR, perhaps the ego is a mythical being, more useful in the days of phrenology. ??
For the ego to do all these things, first it has to exist.

luckyme

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this is one reason for such strong anti-intellectualism and negative bias against psychology in America.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. That's mostly due to the fact that:

- Psychologists practice pseudoscience regularly, even when their techniques have shown zero effect in scientific studies

- Psychologists tend to make assertions without adequate evidence. The text above is a great example

- Psychologists are often extremely self important. The text above is a great example

- Psychology is an inwardly reflective discipline with little procedure for weeding out nonsense or producing useful results.

I think that covers it.

[tame_deuces]

Well, if you want to discuss psychology, you should stop with the psychodynamic nonsense/freudian theories, which are pretty much what Phil said above.

There are however a lot of goof stuff in psychology also, surprisingly good stuff actually with strict adherence to scientific ideals and it is a shame that popular bestseller crap and the psychodynamic/therapy tradition alone can give the field an unjust reputation.

For newbies to the field, psychology consists of something like 6 major branches. Cognitive, biological, behavioral, psychodynamic, critical and developmental psychology. Apart from the psychodynamic branches most of it has a ton of good stuff.

[coberst]

I often post about psychology and often I get such negative responses and always I discover that they are just sophomoric bluff and bluster.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I often post about psychology and often I get such negative responses and always I discover that they are just sophomoric bluff and bluster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that is your reaction to the responses, since you never challenge them. You could just call them 'pinchful' to the same effect.

luckyme

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I often post about psychology and often I get such negative responses and always I discover that they are just sophomoric bluff and bluster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. After one year of reading one guy, you have nothing to learn from anybody.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I often post about psychology and often I get such negative responses and always I discover that they are just sophomoric bluff and bluster.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think there are valid criticisms of psychology and in particular the kind of Freudian and Jungian analysis you often post? Just curious.

I enjoy reading your different take on the world, but mostly criticize it because I don't find it insightful or useful in any way. I suspect with less self importance and a little more critical thought, the authors you quote could be interesting and useful.

For example, what is the point of this particular passage?

[ QUOTE ]
“The ego, the unique “psychological organ” of the higher primates, develops by skewing perceptions and by limiting action.” Early in the infants life the “ego grows by a dispossession of the child’s own inner world. The mechanisms of defense are, after all, par excellence techniques of self-deception.”

[/ QUOTE ]
What exactly is the author talking about, and why is he using the word ego instead of "self restraint", "considered action", "thoughtfulness" and so on? Also, where is the evidence that

(a) Any of this occurs
(b) the process is harmful or negative
(c) it can be improved?

Let's have a look at each of these statements individually.

[ QUOTE ]
The ego, the unique “psychological organ” of the higher primates, develops by skewing perceptions and by limiting action.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very imprecise statement. The author writes as if the ego is some beast growing inside us, telling us what to do and changing what we see. That's all well and good, but where does the ego end and the brain/mind/individual begin? If I learn that touching a hot stove is painful, and avoid it, is that my ego stopping me? Or instinct? If I learn that it hurts when I do something naughty (via a smack), ego or instinct? If I learn that kids only want to play with me if I share, and act accordingly, is that ego or something else? It seems the author has arbitrarily defined this beast called the ego and chucked everything in there. How is that useful?

[ QUOTE ]
Early in the infants life the “ego grows by a dispossession of the child’s own inner world.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain what this means in precise language? This sentence is gobbledygook. I could write a similar statement thus, about relationships:

"Early on in relationships, the mongo grows by a dispossession of each individual's unique identity."

Sounds nice, but is it really meaningful?

[ QUOTE ]
The mechanisms of defense are, after all, par excellence techniques of self-deception.”

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this lacks precision. Can you give an example?

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
I often post about psychology and often I get such negative responses and always I discover that they are just sophomoric bluff and bluster.

[/ QUOTE ]
Try picking a different flavor of psychology, like cognitive for example. The nonsense you are slinging around was junked many moons ago by reasonable psychologists... at least that is what my therapist told me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Alex-db]

Intuitively (as opposed to a result of relevant study or experience) I would venture that "ego" is an emergent property that has occured only as a result of us being able to somewhat observe and articulate our (instinctual?) thought processes.

I think that we could not possibly know whether we ever actually make a concious decision, or if we are just able to observe our (deterministic) thought process, under the illusion that we are somehow helping it along.

I think that if the main processes of a computer gave a running commentary of its calculations to a very simple chipset that was designed to listen to them in the 1st person, this could somehow lead to it calulating that it had conciousness. (And to that chipset "believing" it was key to the process, since it is hearing the messages in the form "now I think I will do this...")