Dissonance in the Super-Ego

Torakx

Slavoj Zizek is a popular modern philosopher and psychoanalyst, who deals quite a lot with ideologies.
He has an interesting theory about enforcing rules on the Superego.

A description of the superego:

The superego is the ethical component of the personality and provides the moral standards by which the ego operates. The superego's criticisms, prohibitions, and inhibitions form a person's conscience, and its positive aspirations and ideals represent one's idealized self-image, or “ego ideal".

He claims with the restriction of homosexuality in the army, the soldiers enforce the rules on themselves, via a culture of homosexual hazing and jokes.
The act of breaking the big rule, in such a way, is a safe liberation from the rule, a breaking of the rule, that ideologically for the super ego, reaffirms the rule.

This behaviour appears to be a form of dissonance, in the super ego.
I was thinking then, for the sake of this thread and topic, to apply this theory to other areas of society.
Mostly to see where else this mechanic/behaviour plays out and has a larger impact on society, than at first would have appeared.

Rules we break culturally as a group or to relate to the group, that bind us and remind us of the very rules we break.
As usual, I want to add some of these other examples to an overall view of society and it's hidden/veiled behavioural mechanics.

Anyone have a good example?
Maybe something to do with taboo restrictions?
Things we only joke about?
Right now I'm lost for some good examples.

Joe1919

Torakx wrote: »

...
Right now I'm lost for some good examples.

The formation of orderly queue's could be used as an example. Often discussed e.g. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Indians-never-make-a-queue

Black Swan

The foundation for Freudian superego was based upon case study research, which has serious methodological problems, in many cases exhibiting the limitations of pre-scientific design, and sampling which was non-random convenience that cannot be generalised to a larger population. Further, it is a qualitative method that may be subjectively biased, and replication of case studies may be problematic. Furthermore, Freud, et al, have all to frequently jumped back-and-forth from the case study individual unit of analysis to a larger cultural unit thereby committing an ecological fallacy, especially when making super ego assumptions between culture and individual cases.

Additionally, there seems to be a serious case study sampling bias in Freud's study of women, given that most of his subjects were from wealthy families that could afford to pay for the analysis of their daughters, excluding most others lacking the funds; yet he made statements about all women based upon this very biased non-random convenience sample.

The id, ego, and superego paradigm may be of historical importance in the early development of psychoanalysis and psychology, as well as what philosophical implications it may have held, but caution should be exercised in its application today in light of more advanced, scientifically based studies.

Torakx

Joe1919 wrote: »

The formation of orderly queue's could be used as an example. Often discussed e.g. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Indians-never-make-a-queue

Do you think the act of skipping the queue in western societies, is also a behaviour that reinforces the rest to use the queue?
Or what rule might this skipping(rule breaking) reaffirm?

It might be that standing in a que in India is a way to break the rule, and also remind others of the need to not que.
Does this work vice versa?
I think so yeah..
Although culturally, I think it is not a preferred method of breaking rules.

While trying to sleep after posting this thread, I came up with another example I think.

Take Ireland's current mode of protest.
They have to register now with the state.

This(organised protest) to me is a way to attack or break the rule which says, all authority to the state.
To rebel against authority. But in a safe way that always makes sure the overall rule is kept. We obey authority(the state) and our registered and granted protests, are little liberations, that allow us to break the authority spell, but only enough to remind us that we are under that authority.
This state tolerance of protest in my view, is a way to control dissent, through cultural conditioning.

That last paragraph could also be directed to Black Swan, to ask if the reply about Freuds research methods, super ego reliability etc, hold sway on this matter still.
Regardless of what the experts might say, does this not seem apparent?

Almost like allowing a small bit of water to flow from a dam, in order to hold back the pressure of a large body of water behind the wall.
The release, allows the larger body to be trapped. The rule of the wall stays strong.

With the army reference, considering the integration of homosexuals, it seems the "wall" would be broken a little too much.
This is why I think homosexuals were seen as a risk in the long term. And until they find or found a replacement wall, they had to keep them out of the army.
I wonder if they have a new wall now?
Maybe it is empathy haha
Breaking the rules by giving sarcastic hugs and encouragment

I believe, if the state would not allow any protest at all. It would be torn down in a matter of months.
If I ran the state as a dictator. I would assign agents to run the protests....
Much like i am positive they already do.

Joe1919

The famous Stanley Milgram did some scientific studies on queue jumping called "Response to intrusion in waiting lines".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Milgram
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/08/healthandwellbeing

Explored the relationship between the spatial configuration of the queue, which is viewed as a social system susceptible to experimental analysis, and the means by which its integrity is defended. Confederates intruded themselves into 129 naturally occurring waiting lines, and the defensive reactions of the queuers were noted. Queuers following the point of intrusion were more likely to object than those who preceded it; 2 intruders provoked more reaction than a single intruder; and buffers (passive confederates standing in line) dampened the queue's response to the intruders. Results suggest that the underlying structure of the queue is composed of replicated segments and that defense of the queue is local rather than systemic

It would be interesting to read the paper but I cant find free ascess (only extract above)
From my own experience, the queue jumper to some extent becomes the outsider, the evil one, and the other people in the queue, although they are often strangers, share a common hate and disgust for the offender. This brings a certain closeness among the group, they now have a common enemy (so to speak) and experience a sense of moral superiority.

The queue example is interesting even from our own personal experience, in that it does illustrate some dissonance as we (at least I do) get very annoyed if people try to jump ahead of me. However, when certain opportunities arise, and I can get away with queue jumping myself,(without being seen or caught), I will queue jump myself.

As regard the existence of the superego, I cant tell. But almost all people (except perhaps psychopaths) experience some type of guilt or shame, and experience something that could be caused 'conscience'.

Torakx

That's really interesting to think about.
I laughed at the idea that we can gain all sorts of information from watching people interact in a queue.
It's so simple and brings some great insights.

I do see it now. This apposing stance to someone doing something liberal, while the rest of us have to follow the rules.
We then enforce these rules on that person, even more than if they had just questioned the idea.
I see the ego being involved here as a way to protect the belief system we are under.
The terminology of ego and super ego may be simplistic these days.
I tend to use it as a reference to explain intuitions I otherwise could not I think.

Carl Jung advised people like me should not try to speak at all. We will only sound crazy

Yes, I am sure the Que scenario fits just as well as Zizek's army reference.
What do you think of the political protest theory?
Do I have a strong enough point, to be able to argue this more publicly?
I have a lot of trouble explaining what feels so simple intuitively..
Again this all fits with my overall agenda of social change and liberation of the individual in society.
I see people working to organise social change, but I often feel they have not yet understood their own chains and so it becomes the blind leading the blind.
While I might point out they are all blind, I cannot yet manage to get people to open their eyes.
This research might bring some answers.
Possibly plugging that hole in the "dam" will cause the water to overflow. But again, in it's own ignorance. Not good enough...

Joe1919

Torakx wrote: »

.
What do you think of the political protest theory?
Do I have a strong enough point, to be able to argue this more publicly?
...

First of all, its very difficult to come up with a unified theory or grand narrative that covers all political protests and at all times. Political protests is a very wide term and covers many different situations. For example, Hitler led a successful (in terms of making himself a hero) protest (Beer hall putsch) and I am not sure what to make of the Arab Spring protests and some of the violent protests by Islamic state protesters. So are we talking legal protests (which are by definition legally allowable) or some type of non-violent civil disobedience or perhaps violent protests from throwing a can of paint at a government minister to planting a bomb etc.
Philosophers (e.g Civilization and Its Discontents by Freud) will argue that there are always tensions between the state (or common good ) and the individual, as there is between those who seek change and those who want things to remain the same, and there are winner and looser in every situation and change.

But back to your theory.Your theory seems to say that states give some type of limited concessions that act as a safety valve (are they buying time?) seems OK as things are perhaps in the western world at present. But some leaders (e.g Stalin) in the past have taking a very hard line against protest and have ruled with an iron fist. This has been very successful for them as far as I can see and many revolutions (e.g 1848 European) have been very successfully put down.
Both Reagan and Thatcher (1980s) took a hard line against striking workers/unions with Reagan sacking all of the air traffic controllers.

I suppose there is always a choice between taking a hard line (not given an inch) and some type of appeasement/limited concessions and leaders sometimes oscillate between both (good cop/bad cop) There are people who have written about this but they do tend to confine themselves to particular situations and try to use historical evidence to make there case. e.g.
https://books.google.ie/books?id=ZAQVAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT171&ots=aXqWAyhRyN&dq=appeasement%20protest&pg=PT171#v=onepage&q&f=false

Having said the above, with the increase in communication and education etc at present, states are taking an easier line but will this hold good in the future and is there a danger of different politics taking a hold?

There is in Sociology a 'Social movement theory' that may be of help.
https://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=Q8oSV-vfM8LkUfKIvKgL#q=social+movement+theory+protest

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

This state tolerance of protest in my view, is a way to control dissent, through cultural conditioning.

That last paragraph could also be directed to Black Swan, to ask if the reply about Freuds research methods, super ego reliability etc, hold sway on this matter still.
Regardless of what the experts might say, does this not seem apparent?

As with most philosophical discussions, we have to agree on one or more premises before we can proceed. Freudian superego as a part of his tripartite paradigm I find bias laden, over-simplistic, distorted, misleading, and empirically/methodologically flawed to such an extent that its hard to get beyond it in this discussion.

Freud's psychoanalytic paradigm, that includes the superego, historically had been widely accepted by psychiatrists, persons in authority, and a large segment of the population. To a large extent it became a cultural meme spread by imitation when attempting to subjectively explain human behaviour back then, which of course had Western philosophical implications. Just because something is wide-spread does not ensure its validity.

Additionally, Freud's psychoanalysis came with its own self-defense mechanism, whereupon if you questioned its foundation, you could be labeled as being defensive yourself, and having something to hide by attacking Freud, et al. There appears to be several such circular arguments in Freud.

This makes me wonder to what extent Freudian psychoanalysis functioned as a form of "cultural conditioning" back then, where behaviours that departed from, or otherwise challenged his paradigm were viewed as deviant, and consequently abnormal, and should be treated accordingly (by defenders of Freud, et al)?

Torakx

Black Swan wrote: »

As with most philosophical discussions, we have to agree on one or more premises before we can proceed. Freudian superego as a part of his tripartite paradigm I find bias laden, over-simplistic, distorted, misleading, and empirically/methodologically flawed to such an extent that its hard to get beyond it in this discussion.

Freud's psychoanalytic paradigm, that includes the superego, historically had been widely accepted by psychiatrists, persons in authority, and a large segment of the population. To a large extent it became a cultural meme spread by imitation when attempting to subjectively explain human behaviour back then, which of course had Western philosophical implications. Just because something is wide-spread does not ensure its validity.

Additionally, Freud's psychoanalysis came with its own self-defense mechanism, whereupon if you questioned its foundation, you could be labeled as being defensive yourself, and having something to hide by attacking Freud, et al. There appears to be several such circular arguments in Freud.

This makes me wonder to what extent Freudian psychoanalysis functioned as a form of "cultural conditioning" back then, where behaviours that departed from, or otherwise challenged his paradigm were viewed as deviant, and consequently abnormal, and should be treated accordingly (by defenders of Freud, et al)?

AH! The rules, the rules, of logicians.
Not my forte.
But you make a good point about founding a discussion or passing of arguments, based on a common and understood ground.

Is there a way to consolidate this gap between recognized and possibly flawed theories and general logical conclusions?
I am not a fan of Freud myself. although I have mostly only studied Carl Jung and then modern psychology in a popular sense.
It seems my theories are at risk of being taken as illogical, because of a questioned premise, that I only use to express an idea. Not to hold it up.
As I see a series of mechanics, that happen. I can't deny the results as they happen. So I forget the need to be correct with my premise.
One action appears to create another. And with more and more examples there seems less chance of it being a false positive.
Or do I mean a genetic fallacy?

I think that if we cannot explain something simply, we do not understand it fully.
Going into the theory of ego and super ego, feels like a needless sidetrack.
Something we may never understand fully.
The examples given, appear to show the dynamics mentioned originally for me, by Slavoj Zizek.

If there is some kind of false positive at play. I am unsure if a return to studying the ego or super ego will be an efficient way to solve the problem.
Interesting, but also time consuming.
I have at least 3 other threads I wish to post and that number grows every day I consider anything philosophically.

I think some guidance would help me here.
How best to overcome this issue you raised?
Set a new premise? I don't think I can consolidate it.
What would be more efficient or effective?
I'd like to learn how to make logical arguments. It's definitely a weakness of mine.
Oh, now I have 4 philosophy threads...

Torakx

Joe1919 wrote: »

First of all, its very difficult to come up with a unified theory or grand narrative that covers all political protests and at all times. Political protests is a very wide term and covers many different situations. For example, Hitler led a successful (in terms of making himself a hero) protest (Beer hall putsch) and I am not sure what to make of the Arab Spring protests and some of the violent protests by Islamic state protesters. So are we talking legal protests (which are by definition legally allowable) or some type of non-violent civil disobedience or perhaps violent protests from throwing a can of paint at a government minister to planting a bomb etc.
Philosophers (e.g Civilization and Its Discontents by Freud) will argue that there are always tensions between the state (or common good ) and the individual, as there is between those who seek change and those who want things to remain the same, and there are winner and looser in every situation and change.

But back to your theory.Your theory seems to say that states give some type of limited concessions that act as a safety valve (are they buying time?) seems OK as things are perhaps in the western world at present. But some leaders (e.g Stalin) in the past have taking a very hard line against protest and have ruled with an iron fist. This has been very successful for them as far as I can see and many revolutions (e.g 1848 European) have been very successfully put down.
Both Reagan and Thatcher (1980s) took a hard line against striking workers/unions with Reagan sacking all of the air traffic controllers.

I suppose there is always a choice between taking a hard line (not given an inch) and some type of appeasement/limited concessions and leaders sometimes oscillate between both (good cop/bad cop) There are people who have written about this but they do tend to confine themselves to particular situations and try to use historical evidence to make there case. e.g.
https://books.google.ie/books?id=ZAQVAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT171&ots=aXqWAyhRyN&dq=appeasement%20protest&pg=PT171#v=onepage&q&f=false

Having said the above, with the increase in communication and education etc at present, states are taking an easier line but will this hold good in the future and is there a danger of different politics taking a hold?

There is in Sociology a 'Social movement theory' that may be of help.
https://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=Q8oSV-vfM8LkUfKIvKgL#q=social+movement+theory+protest

Good points about various forms of protest.
I was only really picturing Irish protests and how they are registered and legal.
With the addition of all forms, it gets a lot more complicated, but I wonder does Zizeks theory, still play a part in all those types as a fundamental mechanic.
I realize I had lost track of zizeks theory, at the point I gave the example of a valve in a dam.
I don't think I was correct to use that example. It seems misleading now.
Zizeks theory is difficult to hold on to...

Although it(the dam analogy) may still be relevant to your first link in that reply. The book has a section on Appeasement and online social media pressures.
Reading this, instantly reminded me of a dam blocked up and overflowing at the brim.
In the case of Stalin's total domination(I know nothing of this history), I would then guess that there was an overflow somewhere. Or possibly he killed so many people that there was no overflow?
Was there a genocide or massacre on a large scale, in order for him to keep control?
And even if so, possibly the process would have effected his own troops and generals? Ying/Yang... where does the "energy" go in these situations..

The second link lead me to a really good book which I will have to spend time on studying and taking notes.
Link
There's some great info here about "framing", in relation to organising social movements and framing perceptions of events, to focus energy into action.

On looking at the direction of the last few posts. It might be good to find a better understanding of Zizek's theory first.
This may also help address Black Swans point about the lack of a solid premise.
Maybe I can find the video where Zizek explains himself.
It's buried in one of those 40min - 1 hour youtube videos of his lectures on stage....

MaxWig

Black Swan wrote: »

This makes me wonder to what extent Freudian psychoanalysis functioned as a form of "cultural conditioning" back then, where behaviours that departed from, or otherwise challenged his paradigm were viewed as deviant, and consequently abnormal, and should be treated accordingly (by defenders of Freud, et al)?

In what sense do you feel that this was the case?

Are you referencing Freud's suggestion that the majority would reject his ideas?

I've never read that he viewed anyone who departed from his theories as deviant, except perhaps those within his inner circle who dared to challenge his analysis.

But they were viewed more as disloyal, surely.

Black Swan

MaxWig wrote: »

In what sense do you feel that this was the case?

Practically and anecdotally speaking from experience (not objective or research based), I've been the subject of circular arguments by Freudian-based psychoanalysts on several occasions during my teenage youth where any defense in-and-of-itself was all too often dropped into convenient Freudian defense mechanism categories; i.e., the mere act of defending my somewhat different (from the female norm) personality was deviant in a circular form of reasoning typically found in Freud.

Continuing to speak subjectively and anecdotally, in many ways I have identified with the lead female fictional character Lisbeth Salander found in the Millennium Trilogy (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, etc.) by Stieg Larsson in terms of her mutual and dysfunctional interactions with Freudian psychoanalysts in the 3 novels. No matter what she did in an attempt to breakout of the Freudian paradigm that was used to imprison her, or treat her as something less than a competent person, such independent actions by her were used to justify her imprisonment or guardianship in circular ways. The more she fought them, the more such fights were seen as deviant and in confirmation of their original diagnosis.

Now objectively and empirically speaking, the researches by Rosenhan regarding psychiatric hospital admissions in the US were rather telling. In one study he sent his graduate students to 12 psychiatric hospitals pretending to exhibit mental illness behaviours, whereupon they were admitted as patients. Immediately following admission, they resumed their normal graduate student behaviours, including emic observations of their surroundings and note taking accordingly, all of which had been classified by their analysts as a form of deviant behaviour. When Rosenhan disclosed the study to the research hospital administrations, his graduate students were released, along with a controversy in regard to Rosenhan's research methods.

Rosenhan was later challenged by the respective hospital administrations (and the APA: American Psychiatric Association) to attempt to do this again, suggesting that his earlier research could be attributed to spurious and capricious results; i.e., not valid or reliable. Rosenhan agreed to conduct the psychiatric admissions research a 2nd time with his graduate students, roughly suggesting when it would occur during a 3 month period. Then Rosenhan sent no students, but rather tracked before-and-after admission rates, noting the significant decline in patient admissions during the pseudo-admissions study period, and then published his results, yet launching another controversy. Of course today, with IRB informed consent rules, Rosenhan could not have conducted either of his studies.

Another summary work that had philosophical and psychiatric implications by Phillip Szasz in his Myth of Mental Illness suggested that many Freudian-based diagnoses were myth, placing an extraordinary number of persons in psychiatric categories because they didn't fit the contemporary cultural and social norms for behaviour. We are not talking about the small number of persons in a population that have evidenced obvious greatly dysfunctional or greatly destructive behaviours against themselves or others, but a larger group of people who were "different," and have been all to conveniently placed in one or more of the DSM IV and V categories of deviant behaviour for treatment.

MaxWig

Black Swan wrote: »

Another summary work that had philosophical and psychiatric implications by Phillip Szasz in his Myth of Mental Illness suggested that many Freudian-based diagnoses were myth, placing an extraordinary number of persons in psychiatric categories because they didn't fit the contemporary cultural and social norms for behaviour. We are not talking about the small number of persons in a population that have evidenced obvious greatly dysfunctional or greatly destructive behaviours against themselves or others, but a larger group of people who were "different," and have been all to conveniently placed in one or more of the DSM IV and V categories of deviant behaviour for treatment.

Agreed, but surely blaming Freud's initial theories for the excesses, ills and corruption of the psychiatric (and pharmaceutical) industries is dubious at best.

I take your point regarding the built in defenses, but I'd be less inclined to rubbish them as somehow being a way of withstanding critique.

They are essential to the theory.

Furthermore, that a powerful majority can be said to have abused Freud's theory is hardly grounds for dismissing it.

They abuse physics too, but nobody blames the physicists

MaxWig

Black Swan wrote: »

Continuing to speak subjectively and anecdotally, in many ways I have identified with the lead female fictional character Lisbeth Salander found in the Millennium Trilogy (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, etc.) by Stieg Larsson in terms of her mutual and dysfunctional interactions with Freudian psychoanalysts in the 3 novels. No matter what she did in an attempt to breakout of the Freudian paradigm that was used to imprison her, or treat her as something less than a competent person, such independent actions by her were used to justify her imprisonment or guardianship in circular ways. The more she fought them, the more such fights were seen as deviant and in confirmation of their original diagnosis.

I guess my broader point is that Freud intended that psychoanalysis be applied to humanity, that we might learn how to avoid the circular behaviours that bring about the same catastrophic results decade after decade.

The process you describe (above) is not uniquely Freudian. That is the human experience.

My experience (perhaps all of ours) growing up was very similar if not as dramatic. We are told that there is a normal way to do things.

Anything outside the norm is unacceptable etc.

Any attempt to challenge the dominant rationale is met with an irresistible suppression. So we gradually become socialised, until we are no longer deviant or perverse. Now we are mature, functioning adults.

Psychoanalysis both as a theory, and as a practice is invaluable in lifting the veil on these processes and allowing us to see what is really going on.

Torakx

I am more a fan of Carl Jung(Dionysus) than Freud(Apollo) and have not really covered a lot of Freuds writing.
I think these techniques for analysis are suited as tools for testing and exploring ideas.
Both styles may be more useful to certain types of personalities than to others.

In my experience, self awareness has always been the precursor to a path to recovery.
These psychoanalytical techniques are a means of asking the right questions to come to self understanding and to experience new options for change.
To stand under or ground oneself.
The main thing about the mind or self in general is that when we become aware of the processes or even assign an awareness and perception of them that might not be true, we gain power over them regardless.
Because we are moving our energy into something within us and taking control intuitively or unconsciously.

I think all styles of therapy work for this reason.
Maybe a big secret for the mental health industry, is that you don't need a therapist. Just a method or will for self exploration and a healthy diet

Going back to the idea of the Super Ego.
I ran into another example of that mechanic Slavoj Zizek was talking about. Well, what I think he might be talking about.
I still feel I'm not quite getting it.

I am in an art group with social media and one of the rules stated in the about section, is no posting links to your portfolios or websites.

As I scroll down, I come across a post or two with their websites linked.
I noticed I got annoyed and felt like complaining or somehow forcing that rule on those people.
What's funny is that I personally think we should all be allowed to post our portfolios. Being my anarchist self...
But because I have to follow these annoying rules, I then feel the need for everyone else in the collective to follow them.
In this situation, someone breaking the rules, helps me an anarchist type, feel like supporting the rules I am really not in favour of.

This to me sounds like a form of dissonance and related to the view of self in and part of the collective(Super Ego?).

Black Swan

MaxWig wrote: »

I guess my broader point is that Freud intended that psychoanalysis be applied to humanity...

Torakx wrote: »

This to me sounds like a form of dissonance and related to the view of self in and part of the collective(Super Ego?).

Let's focus on Freud, and not allow later Freudian psychoanalysts and their practices to cloud the issue of why the discussion of the superego as developed by Freud was terribly flawed and should be approached with serious caution. Further elaborations of these concerns have been made earlier in this thread.

Freud's id, ego, and superego were metaphors. Although they may or may not be useful for discussion purposes, they were distortions of reality, and can be incomplete, biased, and potentially misleading (Gareth Morgan, 1997). Freud's support for his tripartite paradigm was pre-scientific, based upon his case study descriptions of single individuals, with serious sources of internal and external invalidity due to his non-random convenience sampling of subjects, selection bias, lack of controls in research design, and highly subjective methods of inquiry, that were only representative of the individual subjects named (as individuals), and consequently not scientifically or statistically representative or generalisable to larger populations of subjects (or "humanity" or "collective").

From an analytical standpoint, descriptive studies (like Freud's case studies) were not inferential, and scientifically cannot be used to explain or predict behaviour. Further, Freud's case studies were at the individual unit of analysis, and therefore cannot be used to discuss a larger unit of analysis (e.g., "collective," or "humanity") without committing an ecological fallacy.

For these reasons, including the earlier lack of agreement on premise(s), I cannot agree that Freud's superego, or his tripartite paradigm, are valid or reliable, consequently to use it as a foundation argument for the examination of dissonance I find greatly problematic.

Torakx

This is a great example for me to learn from in many ways, for writing philosophy later.
Is it best to redefine or properly define the premise?
I suppose the thread title has kind of trapped me there

Is this leading to a genetic fallacy?
As I am focused on the mechanic that appears to be playing out.
It's been labeled as being tied to the ego and super ego, but if we take those terms away, the mechanic is still there no matter what we call it.
Or is it?

MaxWig

Torakx wrote: »

This is a great example for me to learn from in many ways, for writing philosophy later.
Is it best to redefine or properly define the premise?
I suppose the thread title has kind of trapped me there

Is this leading to a genetic fallacy?
As I am focused on the mechanic that appears to be playing out.
It's been labeled as being tied to the ego and super ego, but if we take those terms away, the mechanic is still there no matter what we call it.
Or is it?

Nail on the head for me.
Freud's genius isn't found in scientific rigour related to his case studies, but rather in the ideas he created.
And he did create them.
We live in a post Freudian world.
We discuss these ideas in Freud's terms, and with good reason.

Whether or not the mind consists of the three objects being discussed is irrelevant.

What isn't up for debate is that there is something at play. And we have a vocabulary now that once we didn't.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

Is this leading to a genetic fallacy?

Interesting point Torakx. This may depend upon how you define genetic fallacy in terms of your 1st post. If you are relying on the original concept and meaning of the "superego" as defined by Freud, then no genetic fallacy exists in today's discussion. But if you are using the "superego" not as originally defined by Freud, rather as it may be defined (by some, but not all persons) in today's context, then to toss out the Freudian old with today's new may suggest that a genetic fallacy exists in today's discussion.

But this raises yet another question. If the "superego" as originally defined by Freud has been empirically invalidated by contemporary research methods, why continue to use Freud's flawed "superego" term? Why not another term perhaps by a different philosopher that does not have all the flawed baggage? What exactly in contemporary meaning and context are you trying to examine in comparison and contrast to dissonance in this thread? Can you define it without Freud's flawed "superego" label?

For example, Freud's "superego" was not unique or original to Freud (Only a rose by another name). Immanuel Kant's earlier "inner sense" and "moral reason" had been antecedent to Freud's superego decades before. Furthermore, the demarcation between consciousness and unconsciousness had not been original with Freud, having already existed in prior Kantian philosophy. Freud did not acknowledge this prior Kantian demarcation model, while many at the time of Freud and since falsely attributed it to Freud as being entirely original to him.

MaxWig wrote: »

Freud's genius isn't found in scientific rigour related to his case studies, but rather in the ideas he created.
And he did create them.

Why does Freud get the conscious-unconscious demarcation model creation credit when Kantian philosophy was antecedent; or the notion that the superego was original to Freud, when Kant's inner "moral reason" was decades earlier? The gradual progression of knowledge, related timing, and cultural context may be important to the acknowledgment of discoveries in philosophy and science, as well as credit for its authorship. Comparatively speaking, Nicolaus Copernicus first proposed the idea that the earth revolved around the sun in 1543, but it wasn't until about 60 years later when Galileo observed the same thing, but during the later Galileo period the pre-scientific community was better prepared to accept it. Then again, perhaps because Freud was an easy read it became popularized, while Kant was a highly conceptual position that required someone well versed in philosophy to understand? I still struggle with Kant's Crique of Pure Reason today, while reading Freud is a piece of cake. And lastly, we could probably go back before Kant and find additional philosophical antecedents to what Kant referred to as inner "moral reason" or Freud later labeled as "superego."

Torakx

I never thought to actually make my own definition or put it in my own terms. Almost like I would be frowned on for not using the most common terms.
Well, it was Slavoj Zizeks preference I referenced

It's already much better now that I try to define it in my own words.
I see loads more possibilities and possible errors.
Taking the super ego for granted might have indeed been too hasty.
It seems to fit well, but I can't say now that I am at all sure if that's the correct reason for the results.

I'll go back to the source and see if I get a new perspective.

For now I really see it as a mechanic that happens with the individual while they see themselves as part of a collection of individuals.
Minor or subtle rule breaking reminds the individuals, of the collective rules and even helps encourage them to enforce it on each other.
This "knee jerk" reaction I saw as some form of dissonance. A lack of resonance(or introduction of a disturbance) within the collective paradigm around the rules.
I would liken it to the idea that plants put more energy into strengthening their stems when the wind blows against them.
These collective rules set in stronger when they have been tested a little.
This reminder and/or reinforcement, is the dissonance to me.

Zizek uses the idea of gay hazing in the army, as a sign of reinforcement within the collective.
I used an example of complaining within a facebook group, which i think is another good example of the mechanic at work.

I don't think this explains why people do this. Just that the collective seem to behave this way.
The introduction of the ego and super ego, would be one way of interpreting these results.
But not necessarily the only way, I think.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

This behaviour appears to be a form of dissonance, in the super ego...

...an overall view of society and it's hidden/veiled behavioural mechanics.

How about considering a completely different perspective that was opposed to the positions of Slavoj Zizeks, Sigmund Freud, and their versions of psychoanalysis? In doing so, consider dropping both concepts "superego" and "dissonance," as well as this "hidden/veiled" pre-scientific and empirically flawed unconscious, and rather examine the problem you wish to resolve using what you referred to as "behavioural mechanics?" Why not consider the behaviourism found in BF Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971)?

Essentially Skinner sees human behaviour as the product of operant conditioning and schedules of reinforcement. Certainly there was some element of nature that may in some small way influence behaviour beginning at birth (e.g., heredity), but the vast majority of what constituted a person in life was the product of her or his environment. There were no struggles occurring between a Freudian id, ego, and superego for Skinner, and no iceberg metaphor of the small conscious seen above the surface, with the large submerged unconscious. For Skinner such psychoanalytic distinctions were meaningless, as they could not be measured empirically using the scientific method; whereas operant conditioning and schedules of reinforcement could be objectively measured.

The Skinner perspective not only tossed out the superego, dissonance, and the unconscious as invalid and unreliable concepts, but also suggested with his behaviourism that "free will" was an illusion. There may be flaws in Skinner's behaviourism too, especially when we consider the more recent CBT approaches, as well as recent developments in cognitive science. Something to think about, critique, and debate?