Sigmund Freud Id ego and superego The Father

Sigmund Freud Id, ego, and superego

The Father of Modern Psychology p Sigmund Freud n n n p p Psychoanalysis “psychology of the mind” Dream analysis 1856 - 1939 Born in Austria, worked in Vienna for much of his life Moved to London during WWII (1938) to escape persecution by Nazis Died by assisted suicide (he suffered from oral cancer due to heavy cigar smoking)

What did he believe? p Human personality is composed of three elements n Id n ego n Superego The elements work together to create complex human behaviors p Unresolved conflict between the elements results in pyschoses (mental illnesses) p

The ID the unconscious p instinctual drives, including biological urges, wishes, and affective motives p dominated by the pleasure principle, through which the individual is pressed for immediate gratification of his or her desires p present at birth p

The EGO p p deals with reality and is influenced by social forces formation begins at birth in the first encounters with the external world of people and things mediator between unconscious impulses (id) and acquired social and personal standards (superego) allows delayed gratification of what the id wants: the ego will eventually allow the behavior, but only in the appropriate time and place

The SUPEREGO p p automatically modifies and inhibits those instinctual impulses or drives of the id that tend to produce antisocial actions and thoughts develops as we gradually and unconsciously adopt the values and standards, first of our parents, and later of the social environment emerges around age 5 includes the conscious self-image or “ego ideal” that each individual develops

The Struggle Within p p The id and superego are always in conflict Freud used the term “ego strength” to refer to the ego's ability to function despite these dueling forces A person with good ego strength is able to effectively manage these pressures, while those with too much or too little ego strength can become too unyielding or too disrupting According to Freud, the key to a healthy personality is a balance between the id, the ego, and the superego

Homework: How does this apply to LOTF? Who could symbolize the id? p Who could symbolize the ego? p Who could symbolize the superego? p Are these “forces” in balance? p What happens if they are not? p

The Lucifer Effect p Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Can “Ordinary” people doing Evil things ?

Lucifer Effect people who are psychologically normal will do evil things under certain circumstances. p The Lucifer Effect is based around the human mind’s power to make people “kind or cruel, caring or indifferent, creative or destructive, and makes us villains or heroes. ”- Philip G. Zimbardo p

Is this for real? p 2 experiments have been conducted to test Zimbagos theory n n 1. The Stanford Prison Experiment The Milgram Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment In 1971 a psychology professor at Stanford University, Philip Zimbardo, put together an experiment to test how students at the school who have a normal mental history would behave in a real life prisoner and guard situation. p The Experiment began with Zimbardo choosing twelve students to be guards and twelve to be prisoners in a fake prison at the University. p --Philip G. Zimbardo “Stanford Prison Experiment” 1999

The Stanford Prison Experiment Continued p p As predicted by Zimbardo, the students who were picked as guards attitude’s changed because of the role they were given. They started to act as if they really had power over the prisoners. They psychologically and even physically began to torture the prisoners. Soon, the prisoners began to psychologically breakdown and go along with the abuse. They even began to obey the orders of the guards. Like Zimbardo also predicted, the students began to act as if it were a real prison and they were the guards and prisoners. They had actually taken their roles seriously as if it was real. Philip G. Zimbardo “Stanford Prison Experiment” 1999 http: //www. prisonexp. org/ November 2011

Results of The Stanford Prison Experiment p p p Zimbardo’s goal for this experiment was to understand the abuse that goes on in prison by testing out the idea that these students would develop the traits of actual guards and prisoners. Only after one day of being in the prison, one of the students had already begun to show a dramatic change in his attitude and was removed from the experiment because of his psychological state. The experiment was suppose to last for a total of fourteen days but was closed only after six because of the danger the students were to each other. Philip G. Zimbardo “The Lucifer Effect” 1996

Results of The Stanford Prison Experiment p The final conclusion supported that idea that the students did not “inherent” these changed personalities but that the situation which they were in caused their violent and evil behavior. Philip G. Zimbardo “Stanford Prison Experiment” 1999 http: //www. prisonexp. org/ November 2011

The Milgram Experiment occurred in 1961 and was organized by Stanley Milgram of Yale University. p This Experiment was to test people’s compliance to obey orders of an authority figure even if it went against the patient’s moral beliefs and conscience. p Kendra Cherry “The Milgram Obedience Experiment” 2011 Psychology Guide Web November 2011

The Milgram Experiment Milgram gathered a group of over 100 participants to be apart of the test. p The participants we given the job as a “teacher” and were told that another participant was the “learner”. The “teachers” did know that the “learners” were actually just actors. p Kendra Cherry “The Milgram Obedience Experiment” 2011 Psychology Guide Web November 2011

The Milgram Experiment p p p The “teacher” and “learner” were placed in separate rooms in which they could talk and hear each other but could not see each other. The job of the “teacher” was to ask the “learner” questions and each time the “learner” would get a question wrong the “teacher” would hit a button which would deliver an electric shock to the “learner”. The electric shock would gradually become stronger and stronger to the point where the “teacher” knew that the “learner” was experiencing extreme pain. Kendra Cherry “The Milgram Obedience Experiment” 2011 Psychology Guide Web November 2011

The Milgram Experiment p The “teachers” all noticed the danger and pain that they were causing the “learner” but when they asked the experimenter if they should stop, the experimenter would respond by saying things like “Please continue” and “You have no other choice, you must go on”. Kendra Cherry “The Milgram Obedience Experiment” 2011 Psychology Guide Web November 2011

The Milgram Experiment Results p p It was predicted that only a very small fraction of the test subjects would inflict the maximum amount of voltage of 450 volts. By they were in for a huge surprise when they were proven wrong and two thirds of the “teachers” delivered that final 450 volt shock to the “learner”. Based on these results, it was concluded that the “teachers”, who were normal people and had no background of doing evil or sadistic things to other people, had delivered that dangerous 450 volt shock, all while knowing that the “learner” was in terrible pain, because and authority figure had told them it was ok to do so. Kendra Cherry “The Milgram Obedience Experiment” 2011 Psychology Guide Web November 2011

Explanations and Conclusion p p In conclusion The Stanford Prison Experiment was extremely accurate and realistic. What was predicted to happen in the experiment was what happened in the real life at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. The Abu Ghraib Prison was run by American soldiers who were not fit to control the group of Iraqi inmates. The Soldiers treated them in the same ways as shown in The Stanford Prison Experiments but even worse. These “normal” people were brought to do evil things to these people by torturing them physically and mentally. Martyn Shuttleworth “Stanford Prison Experiment” 2008

Explanation and Conclusion p p p People act in these evil way in these circumstances because when they are given the specific role, they turning into that character and act in a way that character would act. When told by a authority figure in which they look up to, they may feel uneasy about it but most people will still do what they are being told to do even though it is what they are against. It’s a very interesting subject to think about because in a way all of us have a dark, evil side in which we will go sadistic things under certain circumstances. Professor Christina Maslach “The Stanford Prison Experiment: Still powerful after all these years” August 12, 1996 Stanford New Service November