What do you think of Freud's 'theory of the unconscious'?

Question

In particular, do you think the divisions of the psyche into ego, super-ego and id are applicable to how our minds work?

Do you think there are more accurate or constructive theories of psychology or psychoanalysis?

Answer 1

Well, Freud's theories of the mind were sound enough to spark an entire school of thought that spawned other great clinicians, such as Karen Horney, Carl Jung, and Jean Piaget...so I would say that he was definitely on to something. It's quite easy for us to dismiss his theories as "crazy," now that we have a large knowledge base in psychology and psychiatry. However, when you consider the lack of research regarding brain functions back then, I think his theories are quite sound. In fact, if you compare his ideas of the id, ego, and superego against later theories, you'll find that there isn't really much difference in how later psychologists view the "mind." The "id" encompasses the pleasure principle, primal urges, irrational thought and behavior, etc. The superego includes social modeling, learned morals and values, and the self-image reflected back to you by others. And the ego represents the inner-self that develops and is strengthened though introspection, reaching set goals, positive social interaction, etc.
Virtually everything included in the Freud's three realms of the "mind" are still actively studied today, so I would say that
the divisions of the psyche that Freud created are still a viable model of how our "minds" work.
As for part two of the question...I really don't know if there are actually theories that are more "accurate" than other theories. I would say that a better term might be "more practical" or "more applicable." As each psychological school of thought developed, it eventually moved from theory into practice (or attempted to). The treatments that have had the greatest success with the largest number of people tend to solidify the school of thought from which they originated. Unfortunately, since psychoanalysis was used mostly to treat emotional disorders by examining one's deepest feelings and emotions, it could take years of intense treatment before the client showed a great improvement. Therefore, psychoanalysis never kept a firm footing in practical psychological treatments and is now generally thought of as "archaic." Nowadays, with a greater focus on getting people back "into the fray" as soon as possible, theories that look more at "what needs to be done," rather than "what caused this" are favored, such as Cognitive Behaviorism and the various medical theories of behavior.

Answer 2

Don M is right. Freud gets cred for being the "Father" of the science, but most of his stuff isn't testable - and therefore doesn't quite qualify as scientific. It's a pretty good metaphor though, and you can get some good mileage out of it.

Personally, I think that the idea of a unconscious is a fascinating idea. It's interesting in the sense that Freud suggests that there will always be a portion of the mind that is thoroughly unknowable - definitely a no-no from a scientific standpoint, but philosophically interesting. I find it interesting that it also suggests that we're not fully in control of who or what we are. And then again, much of this concept is obvious - where do our thoughts come from? What about dreams? When we meditate (in a Buddhist sense), where do all those little flitting moths of ideas float out from?

I'll also add that the school of cognitive science within psychology is a branch that has received a great deal of attention from both researchers & practitioners in the last (what...?) three decades or so.

Answer 3

No doubt in my mind that Freud has made the greatest contributions in psychology so far, but the question that you raised is debatable and I don't know for sure if there are any breakthruohs in this regard that have been made after Freud .
Personally am interested in the subject and I've had the same question for some time . I'd be glad if you drop me a line at my e-mail: [e-mail]

Answer 4

There are no better theories.While ego and super ego can be understood,id is difficult to understand.The working of unconscious cannot be proved or disproved.The underlying sexual implications in Freud's theory is difficult to believe.

Answer 5

I think Marvin Minsky's "Society of Mind" concept is perhaps a more accurate rendering of the id / ego / superego of the psychoanalytic school. In my opinion, the I/E/S construct is useful in talking about various aspects of the notion of selfhood, but if it isn't testable and can't be consistently applied with expected results, it's just a mental model.

Answer 6

But people are so afraid of Freud that it is nearly impossible to come up with anything new

Answer 7

Jung was more insightful than freud. his collective unconscious theory covers a lot of other beliefs.

but ive known many psychiatrists and psychologists who were way nuttier than the norm.............

Answer 8

Yes, I believe so. I believe that there are more accurate theories. I'm actually studing that subject right now in college. It is sooooo freaking interesting!

Answer 9

Freuds a friggin genius, thats what I think.

Answer 10

i think it is interesting to analyze is theory..there is true belief in seeing his three divisions of the psyche....like you want to do something but another part of you tells you not to...but i also believe in first instinct..just do it..you don't even have to think about hte consequences sometimes...just do it...but obviously it wouldnt be something harmful....so it's interesting..yeah