Freud's theory of the unconcious question

So I have started reading a book called Introduction to Psychology and inevitably, I came across Sigmund Freud and his Theory of the Unconscious.

So Mr Freud developed the psycho-analytic perspective: the theory that states how much we think, feel and act result from unconscious processes. Now here's the part the puzzled me. Freud states that there are unlearned biological instincts buried deep within our unconscious. These instincts, he says, include sexual and aggressive impulses and apparently motivate our actions. But what are these "impulses" exactly and why must we struggle to control these to conform with society's rules?
If someone could enlighten me on this matter, I'd appreciate it very much.

The ego is our command center; it is the “internal gyroscope” and creator of time for the human. It controls the individual; especially it controls individual’s response to the external environment. It keeps the individual independent from the environment by giving the individual time to think before acting. It is the device that other animal do not have and thus they instinctively respond immediately to the world.

The id is our animal self. It is the human without the ego control center. The id is reactive life and the ego changes that reactive life into delayed thoughtful life. The ego is also the timer that provides us with a sense of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. By doing so it makes us into philosophical beings conscious of our self as being separate from the ‘other’ and placed in a river of time with a terminal point—death. This time creation allows us to become creatures responding to symbolic reality that we alone create.

As a result of the id there is a “me” to which everything has a focus of being. The most important job the ego has is to control anxiety that paradoxically the ego has created. With a sense of time there comes a sense of termination and with this sense of death comes anxiety that the ego embraces and gives the “me” time to consider how not to have to encounter anxiety.

Evidence indicates that there is an “intrinsic symbolic process” is some primates. Such animals may be able to create in memory other events that are not presently going on. “But intrinsic symbolization is not enough. In order to become a social act, the symbol must be joined to some extrinsic mode; there must exist an external graphic mode to convey what the individual has to express…but it also shows how separate are the worlds we live in, unless we join our inner apprehensions to those of others by means of socially agreed symbols.”

“What they needed for a true ego was a symbolic rallying point, a personal and social symbol—an “I”, in order to thoroughly unjumble himself from his world the animal must have a precise designation of himself. The “I”, in a word, has to take shape linguistically…the self (or ego) is largely a verbal edifice…The ego thus builds up a world in which it can act with equanimity, largely by naming names.” The primate may have a brain large enough for “me” but it must go a step further that requires linguistic ability that permits an “I” that can develop controlled symbols with “which to put some distance between him and immediate internal and external experience.”

I conclude from this that many primates have the brain that is large enough to be human but in the process of evolution the biological apparatus that makes speech possible was the catalyst that led to the modern human species. The ability to emit more sophisticated sounds was the stepping stone to the evolution of wo/man. This ability to control the vocal sounds promoted the development of the human brain.

Ideas and quotes from Birth and Death of Meaning—Ernest Becker

Coberst gave a beautiful explanation, but I will try to detail a few additional points, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toni

So Mr Freud . . .

---

Dr. Freud. Besides writing heavily in fields of psychology and philosophy, he attended medical school, and worked diligently in psychiatry and neurology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toni

. . . developed the psycho-analytic perspective: the theory that states how much we think, feel and act result from unconscious processes. Now here's the part the puzzled me. Freud states that there are unlearned biological instincts buried deep within our unconscious. These instincts, he says, include sexual and aggressive impulses and apparently motivate our actions. But what are these "impulses" exactly and why must we struggle to control these to conform with society's rules?
If someone could enlighten me on this matter, I'd appreciate it very much.

---

"Impulses" seems the best word, things automatic, sudden, base, and often uncontrollable. All of Freud's defense mechanisms would classify as impulses, unconscious biological instincts designed and emitted by the ego to protect one from harm, often psychological in form. Based upon that these classify as impulses, yes, all prove entirely unlearned, but the ego can discern, by a trial-and-error process, which defense mechanism work best in what types of situations; for example, if a child finds that s/he can get away with stealing candy from the grocery store by denial rather than displacement, then denial results in a learned behavior that compels the greatest outcome.
The id and the superego seem in constant struggle, and, as coberst mentioned, the ego works primarily as the "command center," or the moderator of the two, the "self." The id functions upon these intrinsic impulses, such as defense mechanisms, but the protection of self, especially in defense, often must seem automatic; usually the superego, to put it simply, does not have time to react to think of how to preserve and protect the self by logical means that require the least side effects and repercussions. The ego utilizes defense mechanisms, but their impulsive natures originate from the id.
How these defense mechanisms can conform to society's rules seems difficult to say. One of Freud's latest works, Civilization and its Discontents, focuses greatly upon the individual's wish for freedom and how a society's laws, though created by humans, suppress individual freedom and force conformation. The ego functions as a very careful balancer between the id's impulsiveness and the superego's meditative qualities, and an individual's impulsive qualities of desiring sex, power, and such things must balance somewhere within lawful means; in pathological conditions, when the id overtakes all, the law punishes individuals for too impulsively seeking these qualities of sexual gratification, wealth, material items, etc. The superego-like law cannot suppress these desires, nor can defense mechanisms always defend them, but the literal fear of punishment often can. Fear, Freud states, regulates the impulsive nature of the id to conform to society's rules.

The three of you have provided some great reading on this thread, thanks! :thumbs_up

In contemporary therapy, are psychiatrists still engaging in Freudian analysis? Has his methods (as well as those of Jung) become passé? These are moot questions, because few can afford expensive psychiatric treatment these days. From what I've been reading and hearing, cognitive therapy (which takes time) has been superseded
by medical treatment. (Prescriptions for anti-depressives, pills for social anxiety, and similiar pharmaceutical remedies.)

I agree that Coberst's capsule explanation of Freud's core observations (posting #2 above) is cogent and clear. As a basis for looking at human psychological development, Freud's theory is valid.

Many of Freud's theories have been disproven in the latter part of the last century however. For instance, Freud's Interpretation of Dreams may not be scientifically correct; many researchers of the recent past --including Francis Crick, who with his partner James Watson won a Nobel Prize for their breakthrough findings about DNA--
maintain that dreams are the mind's way of classifying and storing information and memory.

But again, Freud's work as a whole transformed our understanding about the workings of the human mind, and from a humanitarian standpoint, greatly improved the ways society deals with people with mental illnesses. I think that Freud's essay, "Civilization and Its Discontents" is a classic, but --

I will never ever buy Freud's belief that humor is merely a "defense mechanism!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

In contemporary therapy, are psychiatrists still engaging in Freudian analysis? Has his methods (as well as those of Jung) become passé? These are moot questions, because few can afford expensive psychiatric treatment these days. From what I've been reading and hearing, cognitive therapy (which takes time) has been superseded
by medical treatment. (Prescriptions for anti-depressives, pills for social anxiety, and similiar pharmaceutical remedies.)

I agree that Coberst's capsule explanation of Freud's core observations (posting #2 above) is cogent and clear. As a basis for looking at human psychological development, Freud's theory is valid.

Many of Freud's theories have been disproven in the latter part of the last century however. For instance, Freud's Interpretation of Dreams may not be scientifically correct; many researchers of the recent past --including Francis Crick, who with his partner James Watson won a Nobel Prize for their breakthrough findings about DNA--
maintain that dreams are the mind's way of classifying and storing information and memory.

But again, Freud's work as a whole transformed our understanding about the workings of the human mind, and from a humanitarian standpoint, greatly improved the ways society deals with people with mental illnesses. I think that Freud's essay, "Civilization and Its Discontents" is a classic, but --

I will never ever buy Freud's belief that humor is merely a "defense mechanism!"

---

Hear, hear Auntie. Freudian psychology is a crock. Ask any psychiatrist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Hear, hear Auntie. Freudian psychology is a crock. Ask any psychiatrist.

---

Now that might be a bit much. His science might not meet up to modern standards, true. But his psychology opened up a new perspective on the human mind that has never gone away.

Quite frankly, I enjoy reading Freud and was disappointed that my few psychology classes skipped over him and, more or less, called him bad names.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

In contemporary therapy, are psychiatrists still engaging in Freudian analysis?

---

Yes. There are Freudian, Jungians and Rogerians that are still practicing. The psychoanalyst I know, I'm not a patient (or client, as a Rogerian would say), believe in a combination theory, which may include cognitive and behavioral. I believe the model is known as: the biopsychosocial model, but don't quote me on it.

I personally believe that Freudian theory has suffered from popularity. It has become a part of pop culture and I has become a self self-fulfilling prophecy. Rogerian analyst is the strongest on my opinion, but cognitive is very interesting.

I am convinced that there are two important uses for psychology; one is to heal and the other is to inform. I suspect that the healing is primarily done today by drugs and that few are interested in understanding why humans do the things that they do, which can be answered by our learning how our psyche works.

From responses I receive on Internet forums it appears that our schools teach little about the use of psychology for learning about how our psyche works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

Now that might be a bit much. His science might not meet up to modern standards, true. But his psychology opened up a new perspective on the human mind that has never gone away.

Quite frankly, I enjoy reading Freud and was disappointed that my few psychology classes skipped over him and, more or less, called him bad names.

---

No not really. Freud was not the first to even conceptualize an unconscious. That perspective that Freud supposedly open has been soundly rejected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickAdams

Yes. There are Freudian, Jungians and Rogerians that are still practicing. The psychoanalyst I know, I'm not a patient (or client, as a Rogerian would say), believe in a combination theory, which may include cognitive and behavioral. I believe the model is known as: the biopsychosocial model, but don't quote me on it.

I personally believe that Freudian theory has suffered from popularity. It has become a part of pop culture and I has become a self fore filling prophecy. Rogerian analyst is the strongest on my opinion, but cognitive is very interesting.

---

It's been soundly rejected Nick. The only popularity is in liberal arts classes, mostly literature classes. There is no scientific/biological basis for any of his ideas. If anyone is still practicing Freudian, Jungian or Rogerian psychology is robbing you. I hope they are not charging any money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coberst

I am convinced that there are two important uses for psychology; one is to heal and the other is to inform. I suspect that the healing is primarily done today by drugs and that few are interested in understanding why humans do the things that they do, which can be answered by our learning how our psyche works.

From responses I receive on Internet forums it appears that our schools teach little about the use of psychology for learning about how our psyche works.

---

That's because is ridiculous and soundly rejected by real psychologists. The only place they teach Freud is in literature classes.

Not quite Virgil. I am not following the discussion, but Dr. Ian, of Reuters U, I think, taught me on the James list that Freud was really the first to see that much of mental illness is a matter of degree. Psychoanalysis is not as effective as once believed, but the pendulum is swinging away from over-medicating, and it is still used as a theraputic technique for the patient's emotional needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

It's been soundly rejected Nick. The only popularity is in liberal arts classes, mostly literature classes. There is no scientific/biological basis for any of his ideas. If anyone is still practicing Freudian, Jungian or Rogerian psychology is robbing you. I hope they are not charging any money.

---

They are mentioned in psychology classes under the study of personality. My Professor was a Jungian.

I wouldn't see a therapist with your money.:lol: I'm happy with who I am and self-reflection is the only therapy I need.:nod:

But rejecting Carl Rogers is like saying people wouldn't benefit from a listening ear. Unlike Freud and Jung, who believe they know the problem and lead the session, Rogers is client-based and believes that the client knows what's best and that's why it's client and not patient. It might be comforting to have the confidentiality. Beyond physiological problems, therapy works as long as the patient believes it does ...

depth psychology is there for you to discover and bring into consciousness that which remains hidden to you for whatever reason. A lot of times we don't want to know what is going on inside. Much easier, we think, to go on with the status quo, but the pesky unconscious world is always bubbling up and making us take note.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

Many of Freud's theories have been disproven in the latter part of the last century however. For instance, Freud's Interpretation of Dreams may not be scientifically correct; many researchers of the recent past --including Francis Crick, who with his partner James Watson won a Nobel Prize for their breakthrough findings about DNA--
maintain that dreams are the mind's way of classifying and storing information and memory.

---

AuntShecky, I landed on this thread because I was interested in learning more about which Freudian theories had been disproven and why. Your statement above definitely piqued my interest. I have a question it. You mention that Freud's Interpretation of Dreams was disproven by Crick and Watson's theory that dreams are meant to classify and store information. Well, having read Freud's Interpretation of Dreams, I believe the two theories are actually very compatible. The brain stores memories as events but also, and much more importantly as emotions so that we can determine the appropriate response in case a similar event occurs again in our future. Freud's theories are that dreams are symbolic expressions of the unconscious and if we know how to decipher them, we can use them to guide us in understanding what is important to us at this very moment in our life. Thus, I believe it makes sense to combine both theories. The brain processes recent events in terms of symbolic emotional meaning (thus connecting with Jungian archetypes) to be able to better store the memory of the event as emotions and incorporate them as part of our experience. If we remember and write down our dreams upon waking up, it will help us make sense of our life at that moment because we will gain a more profound, complete, both emotional and intellectual knowledge of our current situation. I believe intuitions in daily life come from such an in-depth knowledge. But that's another story.

To come back to my main question, could you (or anyone else) give some more details and examples about which Freud's theories have been disproven and why? Also if you have any comment about my ramblings above, feel free to respond. I am currently reading Jung's Psychology of the Unconscious and find those topics fascinating. I am realizing how little I know and how much I would love to know more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Hear, hear Auntie. Freudian psychology is a crock. Ask any psychiatrist.

---

One of my professors in grad school (a psychologist) once said in class, ''98% of what Freud wrote was nonsense. But the 2% he got right was genius.''

Not sure if it is quite the 98 to 2 divide, but I feel somewhat similarly. Besides, even the nonsense stuff has much value, as it contributed greatly to the field of psychology and its evolution.

It is hard to say what he wrote is nonsensical or full of sense and I reserve conclusion, and we, often garbing our ideas in a lot of metaphoric eruditions, allusions are capable of conning people into the kind of thought we have though at the bottom they are trashes. However I have some leaning to what Freud had said, for Marx and Freud are two philosophical giants who shaped modern thought and Darwin too comes in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

In contemporary therapy, are psychiatrists still engaging in Freudian analysis? Has his methods (as well as those of Jung) become passé? These are moot questions, because few can afford expensive psychiatric treatment these days. From what I've been reading and hearing, cognitive therapy (which takes time) has been superseded
by medical treatment. (Prescriptions for anti-depressives, pills for social anxiety, and similiar pharmaceutical remedies.)

---

I don't think they're moot questions, because treatment with drugs doesn't solve the patients' problems, it just hides them. Depression, social anxiety and other psychic problems sometimes have causes in the wider context of the society people live in. Drugs provide a short-term solution for individuals but ultimately leave the social problems that caused them intact, and of course the health industry continues to profit from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toni

Now here's the part the puzzled me. Freud states that there are unlearned biological instincts buried deep within our unconscious. These instincts, he says, include sexual and aggressive impulses and apparently motivate our actions. But what are these "impulses" exactly and why must we struggle to control these to conform with society's rules?

---

I think the first question someone should pose is, if these impulses are unconscious, how did Freud discover them? Freud was born in 1856; he lived in a time that, having lost faith in god, relatively speaking, was looking for something to fill the vacuum; Marxism was an answer; Social Darwinism (or Spencerism) was another; the unconscious was yet another. The Unconscious is just another abstract entity used to explain people, but like God, it's not a very solid thing. Anyone who is a human being can't have failed to notice that people sometimes do irrational things, sometimes make strange choices that clash with their well-being. Nothing that literature hasn't explored since recorded history. We all know sometimes our logic is faulty, sometimes we act on impulse. This realization is something that is very much present in our everyday existence, and often is the source of humour. An Unconscious is a redudant explanation, because it just creates one more sweeping entity to explain all human behavior when we already had concepts and language to explain our behaviour.

Also, Freud's context informed what he thought was central in human thinking. Coming from a strict, puritan society, Freud put sex at the center of every human motivation, which is obviously absurd. I think Freud's major contribution was making everyone discuss sex when it was a taboo subject, but he extended it into every aspect of human existence. Then after the carnage of WWI, Freud changed his theory and decided that people in fact had a death drive. He was a man of extremes, and human existence can't really be explained by extremes; it's more complex than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toni

So Mr Freud...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

Dr. Freud. Besides writing heavily in fields of psychology and philosophy, he attended medical school, and worked diligently in psychiatry and neurology.

---

I prefer to call him Uncle Siggy.

Freud actually quite rarely mentions the archaic remnants that OP mentioned. The idea that biological material could transfer from one generation to the next was a interesting question during Freud's days, but this so-called Lamarckism faced a lot of criticism even back then and Freud quietly separated himself from Lamarckism when he realized that it was a sinking boat. Jung on the other hand went crazy with the idea of the archaic remnants and it went on to have an important part in his archetype theory.