The id, ego, and superego in relation to the autism spectrum

Post Reply New Topic

I've been reading up on this subject recently, and find it very interesting. But one thing that's really fascinating me at the moment is how the id, ego, and specifically the superego relate to the autism spectrum, and how they're different for us.

Put simply, the id is where all our raw desires come from, whether or not they're acceptable, ethical, or nice, the ego is what relates those desires to the real world and decides which to get out depending on what long-term benefit they will bring and if they are realistic (the majority of those don't get past the ego), and the superego is what makes us act in a socially acceptable way, and makes us feel guilty for certain things, along with controlling our sense of right and wrong.

So, I'm interested on your thoughts on these in relation to autism? It seems obvious to me that the superego is different for us, maybe it defines what's socially acceptable is something different or maybe it has less of an influence on our thinking?

What's your opinion?

The id, ego, and superego are all imaginary constructs based on incredibly outdated psychological theory. They don't relate to autism because they don't relate to anyone.

Care to propose an alternate theory then?

the id is the primal desire.

the ego is the mechanism that can procure the satisfactory scheme to satisfy the primal desire

the superego is the constraints placed upon the ego to ensure that morality and ethics are addressed by the ego in the design of the scheme to satisfy the primal desire.

an id without an ego or superego just grabs what it wants with no further thought.

a person with only an id will take the sandwich from another persons hand and start eating it without any question or shame.

a person with an id and an ego will find a way to procure the sandwich which is correlating with valid rules, and will take the sandwich and eat it without concern for the famished state of the person with the sandwich.

a person with an id and an ego and a superego will consider the neediness of the sandwich holder for nutrition, and may not take the sandwich if it means the owner of the sandwich will starve,

psychopaths have a strong id and ego, and a deficient superego.

psychotics have a strong id and superego and a deficient ego.

whatever i do not want to go into it because i am too tired (like a bicycle) but i think the terms are very valuable in psychoanalysis.

many people have discounted the ideas of freud because it is fashionable to disclaim what he said, but i am very aware that his philosophy is valid.

Of all the detritus littering freudian theory, these constructs are probably the most useful, as they can be mapped onto, in a fairly straightforward fashion, contemporary neuroscientific concepts.

the id can be mapped onto the "reptile brain", or brainstem and limbic system, while the forebrain nicely comports with the "ego". Superego would simply represent the learned interactions between forebrain neocortex and external social/behavioral pressure.

Now, as for the rest of the freudian morass, I certainly don't want to invoke that particular demon.

I don't need to propose alternate theories to recognize that a theory doesn't work. And that one doesn't work.

If you mean theories of autism. Autism isn't a thing. The only real thing is autistic people. Autism is an abstraction, the people are the concrete reality. The people who get called autistic usually have a variety of cognitive and perceptual differences that have absolutely nothing to do with the id, ego, and superego. Autistic people have different patterns of strengths and weaknesses than nonautistic people do when measured on different tasks that have to do with thinking and perception. The way we take in information, process that information, think about information, and go from thinking to action, all appear to be different from nonautistic people (which ways they differ depends, because there are a variety of different types of people who get called autistic). None of this has a thing to do with the id, ego, or superego, and much less of it has to do with social skills than many people think.

certainly not in the context of autism. There are some models of human motivation that can explain a decent amount using similar concepts though. But they are really too simple to have any great explanatory power.

but you do have to prove that it doesn't work.

not really. It really isn't an accepted scientific model anymore.

for me, it is ego and superego that rules. i have id but i control it too much that sometimes i can barely feel it anymore

Well the id is subconscious anyway, we never have any control over it.

and you call yourself a professor?
you need to to explain why it is not accepted and not just float downstream with the questionable minds that think for you.

what do you profess? you profess a blind acceptance of other questionable appraisals.

anyway sleep for me is totally going to happen before i see your reply because i am too tired to wait for it.

do not worry about me talking to you any more. i will not remember who you are tomorrow anyway.

By who ?

Actually, proponents of such views are the ones who have to provide proof. (And simply saying that areas of the brain map directly onto these ideas isn't proof. The fact that there are aspects of cognition we are unaware of does not prove they are the same as the psychoanalytic (whether Freudian or otherwise) notion of the unconscious.

I was diagnosed while there were still more psychoanalytic views of autism than most people realize (the nineties). After transfer to a psychoanalytic facility they took a leaf straight out of Frances Tustin's book and described me as an infantile psychotic caused by my mothers behavior when I was a baby. They put both me and my parents in therapy. Their application of psychoanalytic theory including the part being discussed here,did not map to any of our brains in the slightest, and was wholly destructive and almost drove my mother over the edge.

I hear the same story from every single autistic person I've met so far who was put into psychotherapy using those concepts. They were entirely useless but often so destructive as to be worse than useless.

The way I perceive these things is not the sort of thing I can explain. I look at the concept and I look at how the world works and I overlay one over the other. The more force-fitting is required to make the two match, the further from reality the concept is. And this concept is one of those ones that can easily fool people but requires much force-fitting to match reality. Meanwhile the gap between it and reality leaves much destruction in its wake.

Most simplified models like this one are doomed in that respect anyway. That's one way you can tell -- when something so simple is used to explain something as complex as the human brain, you know it's probably not real. It has absolutely nothing to do with how fashionable it is to bash Freud.

The problem with models like this is that they reference things that most people can tell are real. Many people look no further than that -- "If it references a real experience it must be real." That also makes things like the various personality typologies popular. But even though it references real experiences, it interprets them in a way that just doesn't work. Even as models go this one is deeply flawed.

(One thing to understand is that I don't go in for models much at all. Even when I use the language of a model that's a function of how I use language and not my belief in the model. I am much more comfortable within my better skill at sensing patterns. And comparing those patterns of real events to this model... the model just doesn't fit.)

Also be aware that there are lots of places that have developed complex descriptions of how the id ego and superego fit in with autism. A few people in places like the USA are still using them. But in places like French these are the norm. And everywhere that does use this model to explain autism there is massive amounts of destruction happening there. It's not just an interesting pasttime for the autistics and their parents who are being treated through these models. For them it is a horrific reality that they are trying to change. I remember when Gunilla Gerland's book came out in Sweden a little over ten years ago and she had to experience the indignity of having psychoanalysts review it in ways that had nothing to do with her experiences. And things like that are the real way things are for people stuck in places where this model predominates. And any model that has such awful consequences can't be a good one.

^ I remain quite convinced of Freudian theories but I also agree with you on the effects of such psychoterapy on autistics. Maybe Freudian theories only apply to NTs ? Or maybe they're just a good descriptive set with little use ?