Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche?

“A person who is saying something is saying something to himself what he is saying to others; otherwise he does not know what he is talking about.-George Herbert Mead

Something that came up in my conversations with @logiczombie is:

I am not sure how much I agree with Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche (id, ego, super-ego).

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

1.First of all, Freud's Theory has never been evidenced. There is simply no empirical support!

Which would seem logical when you are speaking about something beyond the scope of your understanding. (How would you even go about proving something which is in today's understanding --unprovable?)

2.The next problem is that the terms "id", "ego", "super-ego" were made up by his translator and not Freud himself. Freud referred to "the It", "the I" and the over-I". To further complicate matters, "the It" wasn't even his idea but rather came from Georg Groddeck.

So, for the last 100 or so years, people have been teaching, referencing, and using a theory that really could just be pure speculation.

@logiczombie asked me a really interesting question: Have you found a "better" model to describe the basic fragmentation between the known mind and the unknown mind?

This really got me thinking. It's one thing to say you are not sure that you believe something, it's a whole other to then venture into defining what it is that you do believe.

I've been thinking about that question ever since.

Here are a few alternative theories we can look at (there are many more):

Socrates: Socrates describes the psyche as having three parts: reason, spirit and appetite, for which he employs the metaphor of reason being a charioteer guiding the chariot of the psyche as it is being pulled by two horses, spirit and appetite (or will and desire). The function of the rational part is to be wise, that is to rule with insight on behalf of the entire soul. The courageous or high-spirited protective part is subject to, but an ally of, the rational part. The appetitive part is ruled over by the other two. Compare this concept with the concept of the triune brain. The ‘reason’ part of the Platonic psyche can be said to be equivalent to the rational brain, the neocortex; the ‘spirited’ part of the psyche with the emotional brain, or limbic system; and the basic, ‘appetitive’ part of the mind, with the survival or reptilian part of the brain.

My thoughts: I am not sure how the subconscious/unconscious/preconscious fits into this theory. Does it deny its/their existence? Or is it implying that "reason" is the unconscious? If so, this would imply that we are consciously driven by spirit and appetite (or will and desire). But, you wouldn't be able to just be ruled by spirit and appetite (will and desire) alone. You would need a way to process everything. And, we are to a degree consciously aware of that process. So "reason" would then become the conscious. I simply can't reconcile this theory no matter how I look at it. It seems like an incomplete theory, only covering some aspects while completely ignoring others.

Self-psychology Theory by Heinz Kohut: Four basic components, beginning with the nuclear self, a biological construct that infants are born with. The virtual self is an image of the baby retained by her parents. The combination of the nuclear self and virtual self should lead to the next component, a cohesive self, but trauma, abuse, and other problems during development can prevent this. The grandiose self is the fourth component, and is an egocentric form of the self that results from feelings of being the center of the universe during early infancy.

My thoughts: To me, this theory only speaks about how our conscious mind might work. And, I have an issue with Ego. Yes, we need to look out for our interests, and we need to look after ourselves (survival). Self-esteem problems are not ego-based in my opinion but rather rooted in trauma/damage. I don't believe a person in their natural(stable/trauma-free) state would have self-esteem issues. I believe a lot of that has to do with how we live (how unnatural it is). Beyond that, self-importance is an artificial construct. Either again brought on by trauma or by culture, society, etc. If we meet our survival needs, I am not sure we have any need for self-esteem or self-importance. Why would either of these be necessary (or natural?). Why is it necessary to judge ourselves in comparison to anyone else? I think one of the reasons that Ego doesn't sit well with me, is that I find it splits us from ourselves. By saying it is a separate part of ourselves, maybe somehow we assume less responsibility for our choices. (i.e. "my Ego got in the way" when really you are the one who made the choice, not some outside force) Like anyone, I sometimes react emotionally, but I can take a look at my reaction and know what I did wrong, and what I need to work on. It's completely my responsibility, and I am completely accountable. No outside force is driving me to feel feelings. I am choosing to feel whatever I feel. I am choosing to look at things a certain way. I can choose to correct my perspective, etc.

AEDP, accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy: A whole-brain therapy, through its attachment-based stance, AEDP entrains right-brain-mediated affective experiences; works with subcortically generated primary emotions; and recruits left-brain organization for the articulation of emotional experience. Then, alternating waves of experience and reflection give rise to the best the prefrontal cortex (especially the right prefrontal cortex where emotionally meaningful autobiographical narratives are mediated) has to offer: integrative states of flow, clarity, ease, wisdom, compassion, curiosity, generosity, creativity, and calm, where the sense of the truth promotes deep acceptance and self-acceptance.

My thoughts: A very function-based theory. Great for explaining how the brain works. Terrible for explaining anything about how the subconscious works. I am really interested in how the subconscious works. I am interested in the relationship between the subconscious and conscious. I am interested in exploring the possibility of communicating consciously with our subconscious (not just "dreaming" or "imagining" we can but knowing). Questions I ask myself are: Am I my consciousness and my subconsciousness, if so how can one possibly not have awareness of the other? Or, is my subconsciousness separate, and I am just in a relationship with that awareness? Or, is the subconscious some sort of gateway to something else, something beyond? And if so, again, how can I access that? Because my subconscious definitely has access to my conscious. Surely, it can also go the other way (with awareness).

CRUM computational representational understanding of mind: proposes that thinking is performed by computations operating on representations. This hypothesis assumes that the mind has mental representations analogous to data structures and computational procedures analogous to algorithms, such that computer programs using algorithms applied to data structures can model the mind and its processes.CRUM takes into consideration several theoretical approaches of understanding human cognition, including logic, rule, concept, analogy, image, and connection-based systems. These serve as the representation aspects of CRUM theory which are then acted upon to simulate certain aspects of human cognition, such as the use of rule-based systems in neuroeconomics.

My thoughts: I agree that for the most part, our body functions as a system and as such could be described as a machine, a biological machine. When looking at brain activity/communication it could be described as being similar to that of a computer. What is missing here is the subconscious. Where does the subconscious come into play? Is it just some subroutine running in the background? If so, who is writing it? Can I rewrite it? How? All of these theories seem incomplete to me. Many have good ideas, but they seem to ignore a lot of variables.

Theory of Social Behaviorism by Herbert Mead: Mead believed that people develop self-images through interactions with other people. He argued that the Self, which is the part of a person’s personality consisting of self-awareness and self-image, is a product of social experience. He outlined four ideas about how the self develops: 1)The Self Develops Solely Through Social Experience. Mead rejected Freud’s notion that personality is determined partly by biological drives. 2)Social Experience Consists Of The Exchange Of Symbols. Mead emphasized the particularly human use of language and other symbols to convey meaning. 3)Knowing Others’ Intentions Requires Imagining The Situation From Their Perspectives. Mead believed that social experience depends on our seeing ourselves as others do, or, as he coined it, “taking the role of the other.” 4)Understanding The Role Of The Other Results In Self-Awareness. Mead posited that there is an active “I” self and an objective “me” self. The “I” self is active and initiates action. The “me” self continues, interrupts, or changes action depending on how others respond.

My thoughts: Looking at this theory, I immediately disagree with: "The Self Develops Solely Through Social Experience". I don't personally believe that at all. In my experience, once I matured beyond a certain age/phase, in growing awareness, I made more and more of a conscious effort to develop myself, through thought, through introspection, through what I chose to adopt as my values. (I know that my values are not the same as society.) I can agree that many people do not realize their choice points and as a result of that choose to "follow" other people's lead, in which case, yes, their self would develop primarily through social experience. When it comes to "knowing other people's intention" by "imagining the situation from their perspectives", this has been a near impossibility for me. I am baffled every single day by the words/actions of other people. I simply cannot imagine their perspectives no matter how much I try. (I should probably mention here that I am not neurotypical, that I have Asperger Syndrome, or according to the revised DSM: autism.) At least this theory seems to attempt to differentiate between the consciou and subconscious through the I versus me. Except, again, I would dare say that a lot of the I versus me interaction I experience is not influenced by how others respond. (Of course, that could be argued to some degree, because I have to live in this world, but I am speaking in general.) Overall, I see a lot of major issues with this theory and it does not adequately address the subconscious/role of the subconscious/relationship with the subconscious.

Functionalism, Philosophy of mind: According to functionalism, the mental states that make up consciousness can essentially be defined as complex interactions between different functional processes. Because these processes are not limited to a particular physical state or physical medium, they can be realized in multiple ways, including, theoretically, within non-biological systems. This affords consciousness the opportunity to exist in non-human minds. This could allow a computer or artificial intelligence to have consciousness if we accept that cognitive processes are computational. Functionalism's explanation of consciousness, or the mental, is best understood when considering the analogy made by functionalists between the mind and the modern digital computer. More specifically, the analogy is made to a "machine" capable of computing any given algorithm (i.e. a Turing machine). This machine would involve: 1)Data input (the senses in humans).2)Data output (both behaviour and memory).3)Functional states (mental states). 4)The ability to move from one functional state into another.5)The definition of functional states with reference to the part they play in the operation of the entire entity - i.e. in reference to the other functional states. So long as the same process was achieved, the "physical stuff" -- that being computer hardware or biological structure -- could achieve consciousness.

My thoughts: This sounds great, but it completely ignores the subconscious/unconscious/preconscious. Theoretically, AI could achieve consciousness, but in my understanding, only if it also achieved "subconsciousness" as well. Otherwise, it is just a machine, performing functions. It's fast becoming clear to me that I definitely believe that there is more going on than just what we know of (consciously). I was under the impression that this was a widely held belief. Is it not? For me, there is a clear difference between what I am consciously aware of, can influence/change and that which I am unaware of and ipso facto can't influence/change. I mean, can we condition and influence the subconscious? If so, how? Maybe I am just not making the connection.

There are so many more theories we could explore. Thus far, I haven't found any one theory that I am satisfied with.

Perhaps in time, I will just continue to develop my own.

You never know.

It's certainly interesting to think about!

What do you think: Do you think that the id, ego, and superego exist?

What do you think of these other models/theories?

Do you have any which you favour, or which I haven't elaborated on here?

I am interested in your thoughts. The reason that I am interested is that I am essentially always trapped in my own perspectives. Maybe, by sharing perspectives and understandings, I can expand mine faster than I would be able to on my own(and others as well).

Thanks for taking the time to read.

-Akiroq