Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpcupt1!hpisod2!decot
From: decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: superego/ego/id : some general questions
Message-ID: <14830005@hpisod2.HP.COM>
Date: 8 Apr 88 02:07:43 GMT
References: <6171@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 76

> } The only distinction between these two facilities of the reactive mind
> } is that the "id" part records bodily sensations and offers them up for
> } reperception later under similar circumstances, and the "superego" part
> } is responsible for storing verbal judgements and ways to determine that
> } others are wrong and oneself is right.  This only appears to be
> } useful information in that it helped somebody win when it was originally
> } experienced, but since it does not involve the analytical mind, it
> } usually results in aberrative behavior.
> 
> A huge amount of human behavior is socially learned and not subsequently
> analyzed -- for example, the use of language on the part of most people.

I'm sorry to be unclear.  When I say "analyzed", I mean, roughly, "perceived,
compared to past experiences, and recorded in a fashion accessible to
later analyzing".  The theory is that the reactive mind records perceptions
only when the analytical mind is totally or partially inactive.  When a person
is fully conscious, all of the perceptions are recorded by the "ego",
or analytical mind, and are fully available to it later.  But "facts"
received when a person was partially unconscious or in great pain
(such as "You never do what I say") would be called forth later under
similar circumstances and result in decisions without the person's
conscious knowlege.  "You never do what I say" heard when
a person is fully alert in a social situation would be understood to be
simply a critical comment, and not taken literally.

Your analytical mind is not something you have to consciously "think" with,
it simply performs logical tasks on data accessible to it.  You
cause your mind to perform the tasks desired, but the "default"
task (recording and analyzing) is not something you have to "make"
to happen, and that's certainly useful.

> An individual who tried to analyze the totality of his behavior would
> not have time to actually do anything.

Yes.  "Analyzing" in the sense I mean does not require "trying" or "thinking".
I'm referring to the mind's automatic process of perceiving and recording
perceptions and permitting the normal "background" analysis done by the
mind to take place.  This doesn't ordinarily involve conscious effort, but it
does require the person to be awake, for instance.  If you're in pain,
that takes enough attention away from what's going on around you
to cause it not to be perceived analytically.

> } Thus, you don't need your id or superego for anything in particular.
>
> Then you wouldn't have them.  Evolutionary pressures quickly get
> rid of characteristics which waste large amounts of energy.

They're vestiges, and even as such today they waste large amounts of energy.
I'm sure you can think of illogical and irrational things done by
persons that waste large amounts of energy.  These persons are not dead,
and lots of them will have children.

> } Anything good about your behavior comes from your analytical mind
> } (aka your "ego").
>
> I don't see how anything can be called good on the basis of pure
> analysis.  Some kind of primordial sense of good or benefit would
> have to come first.  Some kinds of supposedly good behavior derive
> from: desire for survival of self, desire for survival of the group, 
> love/altruism, religious belief, "art".  How would you produce
> these by means of analysis?  What are your primitives, your axioms?

I use the term "good" to mean "aiding in survival", of whatever, including
one's body, his family, his groups, his race, his planet, the physical
universe.  Art and religious beliefs can be said to be "good" for a person
when they help maintain his mental health, by improving his affinity,
reality, communication, and understanding, all of which helps him survive.
The opposite of this definition of "good" would be "causing pain and death".

There was a time millions of years ago when the reactive mind was of use
to us, when we had no real capacity to analyze and remember things
abstractly.  Simplistic automatic associations were enough to keep us
alive then, but not today when there's more thinking beings around.

Dave Decot
hpda!decot