4 ms·

>What if the moment our better self suggests an early bedtime or a lap in the pool or writing a poem, it starts to sound like a scolding parent telling us what

>What if the moment our better self suggests an early bedtime or a lap in the pool or writing a poem, it starts to sound like a scolding parent telling us what we ought to do. So we become a little like a stubborn child, asserting our independence by digging in and not moving. It's Freudian psychology [1] that adults are the ones who have integrated their super-ego into their ego. If there is a separation between 'self' and 'better self', then the development doesn't seem to be finished. Like the author, I don't like to do the stuff that the better self suggests. I can trick myself to follow the better self with discipline or by gamifying the task, but I don't know how to overcome the separation and make those tasks 'mine'. Does anybody know how to do the integration? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(psychology)#Freudian_school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(psychology)#Freudian_s...

catchclose8919 4y ago
> then the development doesn't seem to be finished It's never finished, that's the point, if you want to keep growing the a part of you must separate a bit and drag itself towards the better possible future, then later drag the other lump of you either gently or kicking and screaming. But this "non integration" seems to be the "engine for growth". Even our society as a whole embraces a similar mechanism to "force growth". You can have integration and comfort, but... you'll need to oursource the growth and suffering that comes with it (think of the billionaines chillin' and vibin' while striving engineers and tormented artists do the real work towards the betterment of humanity). That's kind of the sad truth, some need to be non-integrated and under some amount of suffering for the wheels to keep turning.
ordu 4y ago
> It's Freudian psychology [1] that adults are the ones who have integrated their super-ego into their ego. It is impossible, if I understand Freud. Ego is defined as a place of a conflict between SuperEgo and Id. SuperEgo and Id are both play their essential roles, they are needed components, and the conflict between them stems from the fact that they are not the same. So the conflict is inevitable and Ego is the place to resolve it. > Like the author, I don't like to do the stuff that the better self suggests. What do you mean by a "better self"? Stuff like to make something nice to yourself, especially at the physical level is mostly about Id in a Freudian psychology. It is the work of Id to seek pleasant physical sensations. But SuperEgo says that you need to conform to social norms and to not allow yourself to force other people to have sex with you every time your Id feels that way. So Id and SuperEgo clash in Ego which finally makes a decision. The idea to let yourself to take pleasure going to bed early instead of resisting it seems to me as an Id idea. Though the idea to read twitter a little more before going to bed is also essentially the seeking of an instant gratification. I don't know how psychoanalysis handle it: a conflict of Id vs Id?
- closedloop129 4y ago
  >What do you mean by a "better self"? That's difficult to define. I think I have used it in the same way the author uses it in the article. I took the liberty to equate the better self with the SuperEgo but that could be wrong. The way I read your comment, the SuperEgo consists out of social norms that only exist because society exist. But there are things that we know are good for us, that are pleasant to us, but we still don't do them. Are they part of the SuperEgo?
  - ordu 4y ago
    > The way I read your comment, the SuperEgo consists out of social norms that only exist because society exist. Not just like that. It is about ideas of Good and Evil absorbed in a childhood. It is mostly is a social things, but not quite. Though from other hand human is defined though a society, Homo Sapience cannot become a human without growing in a group of other humans. All the essential things, like a language are acquired through education. So in a broad sense yes, SuperEgo is a product of a society. > But there are things that we know are good for us, that are pleasant to us, but we still don't do them. Are they part of the SuperEgo? I do not know. Probably professional psychoanalytics are do not know either, and if asked would debate between themselves for days. Freud said that Id is about primitive drives of a behavior, like food, water, sex. I think that any acquired conditional reflexes seeking instant gratification (like obsessive refreshing of a twitter for new tweets to consume) are also belong to Id. While any "high level" idea of what is good for you belongs to SuperEgo. When thing is good for us and is pleasant to us, then it technically belongs to both, as to Id, so to SuperEgo. How psychoanalisys handle this I do not know. If it was up to me, I'd say that my knowledge that something is good for me is a part of SuperEgo, while an expectation of a pleasure is a part of Id, so they are different drives working from different parts of psyche. Why I choose not to do it is a tricky part, because SuperEgo and Id agree on this, but it doesn't happen. The author proposes an explanation of Inner Child resisting discipline, and I think that any explanation would need to bring something in addition to "good for me" and "pleasure to do". Something that triggers a conflict in Ego.

catchclose8919 4y ago

> then the development doesn't seem to be finished It's never finished, that's the point, if you want to keep growing the a part of you must separate a bit and drag itself towards the better possible future, then later drag the other lump of you either gently or kicking and screaming. But this "non integration" seems to be the "engine for growth". Even our society as a whole embraces a similar mechanism to "force growth". You can have integration and comfort, but... you'll need to oursource the growth and suffering that comes with it (think of the billionaines chillin' and vibin' while striving engineers and tormented artists do the real work towards the betterment of humanity). That's kind of the sad truth, some need to be non-integrated and under some amount of suffering for the wheels to keep turning.

ordu 4y ago

> It's Freudian psychology [1] that adults are the ones who have integrated their super-ego into their ego. It is impossible, if I understand Freud. Ego is defined as a place of a conflict between SuperEgo and Id. SuperEgo and Id are both play their essential roles, they are needed components, and the conflict between them stems from the fact that they are not the same. So the conflict is inevitable and Ego is the place to resolve it. > Like the author, I don't like to do the stuff that the better self suggests. What do you mean by a "better self"? Stuff like to make something nice to yourself, especially at the physical level is mostly about Id in a Freudian psychology. It is the work of Id to seek pleasant physical sensations. But SuperEgo says that you need to conform to social norms and to not allow yourself to force other people to have sex with you every time your Id feels that way. So Id and SuperEgo clash in Ego which finally makes a decision. The idea to let yourself to take pleasure going to bed early instead of resisting it seems to me as an Id idea. Though the idea to read twitter a little more before going to bed is also essentially the seeking of an instant gratification. I don't know how psychoanalysis handle it: a conflict of Id vs Id?

closedloop129 4y ago
>What do you mean by a "better self"? That's difficult to define. I think I have used it in the same way the author uses it in the article. I took the liberty to equate the better self with the SuperEgo but that could be wrong. The way I read your comment, the SuperEgo consists out of social norms that only exist because society exist. But there are things that we know are good for us, that are pleasant to us, but we still don't do them. Are they part of the SuperEgo?
- ordu 4y ago
  > The way I read your comment, the SuperEgo consists out of social norms that only exist because society exist. Not just like that. It is about ideas of Good and Evil absorbed in a childhood. It is mostly is a social things, but not quite. Though from other hand human is defined though a society, Homo Sapience cannot become a human without growing in a group of other humans. All the essential things, like a language are acquired through education. So in a broad sense yes, SuperEgo is a product of a society. > But there are things that we know are good for us, that are pleasant to us, but we still don't do them. Are they part of the SuperEgo? I do not know. Probably professional psychoanalytics are do not know either, and if asked would debate between themselves for days. Freud said that Id is about primitive drives of a behavior, like food, water, sex. I think that any acquired conditional reflexes seeking instant gratification (like obsessive refreshing of a twitter for new tweets to consume) are also belong to Id. While any "high level" idea of what is good for you belongs to SuperEgo. When thing is good for us and is pleasant to us, then it technically belongs to both, as to Id, so to SuperEgo. How psychoanalisys handle this I do not know. If it was up to me, I'd say that my knowledge that something is good for me is a part of SuperEgo, while an expectation of a pleasure is a part of Id, so they are different drives working from different parts of psyche. Why I choose not to do it is a tricky part, because SuperEgo and Id agree on this, but it doesn't happen. The author proposes an explanation of Inner Child resisting discipline, and I think that any explanation would need to bring something in addition to "good for me" and "pleasure to do". Something that triggers a conflict in Ego.